Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of MR. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HEREERT, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the. Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.

Bill committed.

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order).

Second Reading deferred till the first Sitting Day after 30th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMODITY PRICES (PROPOSED LEGISLATION).

Mr. Cary: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any announcement about the intention of the Government to strengthen the machinery for controlling prices?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. Conditions have changed greatly since the Prices of Goods Act was passed in the autumn of 1939, and in particular the supplies of goods available to the public have had to be sharply curtailed. The Prices of Goods Act has worked satisfactorily up to the present in keeping prices generally at a reasonable level in relation to costs,

but I am satisfied that in the altered circumstances a further measure of price regulation is needed. I hope soon to introduce a Bill to give the Board of Trade greater powers of control over prices, other than food prices, than are provided in the existing Act, and to effect a number of improvements in the system of price regulation set up by that Act. In particular, I propose to ask in the new legislation for power to fix maximum prices for specified goods and maximum wholesale and retail percentage margins. There will also be power to deal with manufacturers' prices and margins and with the charges made for services, such as the storage of furniture. Provision will be made to prevent increases in the price of articles which are controlled under the Limitation of Supplies Orders owing to commissions on transactions between registered persons and others, or to the intervention of unnecessary intermediaries in such transactions, and it is hoped by similar means to check speculative dealing in goods which are not controlled under these Orders.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In view of the importance and complexity of this projected legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with all the interests concerned, including, of course, the chambers of commerce, the F.B.I, and other organisations affected?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to leave out any class of commodity, and, if so, why he should leave it out?

Mr. Mathers: Can the right hon. Gentle-man say when this legislation is likely to come forward?

Mr. Lyttelton: That I cannot say at the moment. As far as the commodities are concerned, the powers will be used in the first instance only for essential commodities.

Mr. Leach: What is an essential commodity?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (IDENTITY DISCS).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Minister of Shipping whether, having regard to the number of bodies of merchant seamen washed ashore without means of identifi-


cation, he has come to a decision as to making compulsory the wearing of identification discs by members of the Merchant Service?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): I have asked the representatives of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy for their views and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as a decision has been reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

UNOCCUPIED FRANCE (IMPORTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare what steps are being taken to prevent the passage of goods to France from all overseas destinations; and whether he will give an assurance that there will be no weakening in the blockade as a result of German pressure on the Vichy Government?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): Ships carrying unnavi-certed cargo for France are liable to be intercepted by our patrols, and a number of ships entering the Mediterranean with such cargoes have been intercepted. As a result of discussions between the United States Government and the French Government which have been carried on in consultation with His Majesty's Government it has been agreed that the American Red Cross should send two gift cargoes of flour to Unoccupied France. His Majesty's Government have agreed to issue navicerts for these two ships. This flour is intended only for Unoccupied France. Its distribution there will be under effective American control, which will ensure that it is consumed in that area. The French Government for their part have given to the United States Government an undertaking that no similar or equivalent foodstuffs will be exported from the unoccupied to the occupied zone. The agreement of His Majesty's Government to these two shipments of flour does not, of course, imply that under present conditions they would be prepared to issue navicerts for the import into France of other supplies.

Mr. Mander: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the French Government are in any position to give a guarantee that the food will not be sent to Germany? Is he aware that in three weeks in

December-January last, 200,000 tons of merchandise were landed at Marseilles, and can he give an assurance that that sort of thing will not be permitted in the future, as a great part of it is certain to reach Germany?

Mr. Dalton: The guarantee given by the French Government that these particular shipments will not pass to Germany is to be subject to supervision by an American Commission in Unoccupied France. The other matters raised by my hon. Friend arise, I think, in connection with a later Question.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Does not this relieve the Germans of their obligation to feed France?

Mr. Leach: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it can be denied that these two consignments will actually help Germany?

Mr. Dalton: That is a matter for argument.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the weapon of blockade is only useful if it is applied ruthlessly?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that this is a very important matter, may I ask whether it is proposed to confine the decision to this isolated instance, or are there to be further provisions? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that this may have the effect of prolonging the war?

Mr. Dalton: So far, the information I have given to the House is complete. Pending any further consultations or discussions, the agreement of His Majesty's Government is limited to the two particular shipments which I have named in my answer. That is where we stand to-day.

Mr. Thorne: In consequence of the very great shortage of food in some parts of France, does the right hon. Gentleman think that they will be able to send any of that food away themselves?

Sir J. Lamb: May I have an answer to my question as to whether this does not relieve Germany of an obligation which is theirs in view of their hold on the country?

Mr. Dalton: I think my hon. Friend understands the facts as well as I do. The conclusions to be drawn from them are a matter for debate.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is satisfied that the imports received by unoccupied France from French North Africa are not used by the enemy; and whether he has any information as to the nature and quantity of such imports?

Mr. Dalton: A proportion of the imports into unoccupied France from French North Africa is undoubtedly made over to the enemy. Complete particulars of Such imports are not available, but they are known to include considerable quantities of foodstuffs.

Mr. Mander: May I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he has taken to prevent this sort of thing going on, and whether it is not a fact that 200,000 tons of goods, a great part of which went to Germany, were permitted to enter Marseilles, in three weeks in December and January, and is this sort of thing going to be tolerated by the Government?

Mr. Dalton: The figures that my hon. Friend referred to were published, I think, in a paper called "Le Semaphore," and if it is true, as that paper stated, that 289,000 tons of cargo did arrive at Marseilles from all destinations during all that period, my hon. Friend will realise that the phrase "all destinations" includes the North African ports. As long ago as July last, I informed the House, in a Reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), that since France fell out of the war certain consequences were obvious in the Western basin on the Mediterranean which, while France was our Ally, was looked after by the French naval patrol.

Mr. Shinwell: Way I ask whether this leakage in the blockade is designed, or is it unavoidable?

Mr. Dalton: That is a rather general question. The Question I was asked related to the question of the Western basin, with regard to which I think my hon. Friend will have understood the sense of the answer I have given that since France fell out of the war the Western basin has presented peculiar difficulties.

Sir William Davison: Has the atention of the Government been drawn to the facts he mentioned a few moments ago, namely, as to the food from the French Colonies going to Germany instead of going to France to relieve the situation there?

Mr. Dalton: The Government are well aware and have information to show that a certain proportion of these imports does reach the enemy.

Sir A. Southby: If the Vichy Government have any exportable surplus coming in from Northern Africa, why is there any reason why we should allow other goods to go in from America?

Mr. Dalton: The term "exportable surplus" is strictly to be used in regard to French North Africa—from which these exports come. It is not to be used in respect of unoccupied France as a whole. They have not got an exportable surplus in this same sense in normal times.

Sir A. Southby: Is it not a fact that if the French Government are able to pass on to Germany goods which they export from Northern Africa, there can be no reason why we should allow goods to go into them?

Sir J. Lamb: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that British sailors lose their lives only for politicians to break the blockade they have made?

RUSSIAN IMPORTS.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has anything further to report in regard to Russian imports through Vladivo-stock for re-export to Germany; and whether these are now diminishing?

Mr. Dalton: Sales to Germany of goods imported by the U.S.S.R. on their own account are very small. Direct transit trade to Germany by the Trans-Siberian Railway remains, however, I regret to say, substantial. Moreover, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on 28th January, there is a constant danger that abnormal Soviet imports, even though not themselves re-exported, may release for export to Germany corresponding quantities of Soviet products.

JAPAN (PETROL IMPORTS).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that in August, 1940, there was imported into Japan seven times as much ordinary petrol as in August, 1939; that the extraction from this petrol of aviation spirit defeats the United States of America ban on the export to Japan of 87 octane fuel; and whether he has taken any action or made any representations to the United States of America Government on this matter?

Mr. Dalton: No figures for Japanese imports are published by the Japanese Government. Figures published by the United States Government show that exports to Japan of motor and aviation spirit combined were about 13,000 tons in August, 1940, compared with about 2,500 tons in August. 1939. It is, of course, possible for spirit rated below 87 octane to be brought up to aviation grade by the addition of tetra-ethyl of lead. This question has for some time been under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister aware that his facts bear out the suggestion made in the first part of my Question? In view of the enormous amount of ordinary petrol pouring into Japan at the present time and being stored, possibly to our detriment, will he expedite the negotiations with the United States?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend's arithmetic was not quite correct, but I can assure him the matter is very much in our mind.

Mr. Robert Gibson: My right hon. Friend merely quotes the figure of exports from America to Japan, but has he the figures for the exports from the West Indies?

Mr. Dalton: I answered the Question on the Order Paper, but if my hon. and learned Friend wishes to have an answer to another question, I will try and give it to him if he puts it on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MISSING SOLDIERS (ALLOWANCES AND ALLOTMENTS).

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War the result of his

promised review of the arrangements for the payment of allowances and allotments to the next-of-kin of men missing from the British Expeditionary Force and North-West Expeditionary Force?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): On the death of a soldier, the payment of family and dependants' allowance, and of allotments from his pay, is continued for 13 weeks from the date on which the casualty is notified. When a soldier is missing and his fate remains in doubt, payment is continued for 17 weeks from the date on which he is notified as missing. At the end of these periods the dependants, if eligible, receive a pension or a continuing allowance at pension rates. The most careful consideration has been given to a proposal to extend the period beyond 17 weeks, during which allowances and allotments continue to be paid to the dependants of missing men, and other Departments concerned have been consulted. But it was felt that it would be impossible to make this concession to the families of soldiers who were missing but whose fate remained in doubt, without extending it to the families of soldiers who were known to be dead. For this reason, I regret that I am not prepared to extend the period during which allowances, etc., are continued to the dependants of missing men. The position as regards officers is broadly the same, and the aguments against making a change apply with equal force. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that administrative improvements have recently been made, with a view to preventing any break between the payment of family or dependants' allowance and the payment of a pension or a continuing allowance at pension rates where the dependant is eligible.

Captain Duncan: May I take it that in future there will be no gap between the termination of the payment of the allowance or allotment and the beginning of the payment of the pension, if the case is eligible for pension?

Captain Margesson: That is the object of the administration.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION LAND, BISLEY.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War what rent is being paid per annum by the War Office


for the land belonging to the National Rifie Association at Bisley; and the approximate acreage?

Captain Margesson: The required information is being obtained from the Command, and I will communicate with ray hon. Friend as soon as it is received.

Sir W. Smithers: If the information reveals a state of things which justifies him in doing so, will my right hon. and gallant Friend put it before the High Court, so that a Judge may see whether there is a prima facie case of waste and extravagance?

Captain Margesson: I think I had better get the information first.

CAFÉ WATFOED (SERVICE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that four soldiers and non-commissioned officers were refused service at Gibbons' Café, High Street, Watford, on 7th March, the reason adduced being that only officers could be served there; and whether he will take steps to make known to the proprietor of this establishment and the catering trade generally that discrimination as between officers and other ranks cannot be tolerated.

Captain Margesson: It appears that some misunderstanding has arisen over the reasons why the soldiers in question were refused admittance to the café to which the hon. Member refers. I am informed that the é is normally open to all ranks, but that on the evening of 7th March it had been reserved for a private party by officers, and was, therefore, closed to the general public. There was no question of discrimination against other ranks as such, and any discrimination of this kind would be directly counter to War Office policy.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the reason for the refusal to serve these rain-drenched soldiers was that a party of officers was going to use the restaurant? Can the Minister conceive of the restaurant owner refusing to serve four officers if they had come in such conditions?

Captain Margesson: I do not accept that suggestion at all. I have given the full facts. It is quite clear that if a restaurant owner wishes to allow his premises to be

reserved on any occasion by a party, he is entitled to.

Mr. Gallacher: Would that restaurant proprietor have refused to serve four officers who were rain-drenched and suffering from cold, as these men were?

Sir Irving Albery: Is it not perfectly clear that if a party of soldiers may take a restaurant, officers are equally entitled to do so?

WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RANK).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers and men holding acting rank who arc struck off the strength of their units on account of wounds or injuries received in action, will be permitted to retain their acting rank with appropriate pay and allowances during the period they are recovering from their wounds or injuries?

Captain Margesson: I am about to issue instructions that officers and other ranks who are wounded while holding any higher-paid acting or temporary rank may retain such rank while unfit for up to three months from the date of their removal from duty on account of wounds.

MOTOR SHIP "ETTRIC" (INQUIRY).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War the decision he has arrived at with reference to an inquiry into the conditions on board the Motor Ship "Ettrick," when internees were being sent to Canada; or whether he intends to proceed by court-martial?

Captain Margesson: The majority of the complaints about the conditions on board relate to accommodation and to the discomfort which arose as a result of overcrowding. As it was essential that the ship should be filled to capacity, the accommodation of passengers was necessarily restricted, and some discomfort was, I regret to say, inevitable. No complaint of general ill-treatment, brutality, or indiscipline on the part of the military escort, however, has been received, and, although there may have been some evidence of unsympathetic treatment by individuals, I am satisfied that it is not of such a nature as to warrant trial by court-martial.

Mr. Mander: Have complaints not been made about lack of consideration and the


failure of officers responsible to go down and find out what the conditions were?

Captain Margesson: There have been such complaints, but they have been looked into. As the hon. Member knows, in another case the War Office were most anxious to get to the bottom of the complaints. I have done the same in this case, and I am satisfied.

Mr. G. Strauss: Where complaints have been made against individual men and officers, has any punishment been given?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir, because the complaints have not been substantiated.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. Scott: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the issue, either free or at cost price, of a badge of standard pattern for the use of all ranks of the Home Guard when in civilian dress?

Captain Margesson: The proposal to make available to members of the Home Guard a badge of approved design to be worn with civilian clothes has been carefully considered by my Department in consultation with the Ministry of Supply, but it was reluctantly decided that the manufacture of such a badge could not be justified in present circumstances in view of the need for conserving metal supplies.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is proposing to take steps to set up a medical organisation for the Home Guard?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. After consultation with the Central Medical War Committee, it has been decided to appoint an officer with the rank of major to each Home Guard battalion to act as medical adviser to the battalion commander. Medical officers will be non-combatant members of the Home Guard. They will, however, be liable to be called upon for duty in the same way as other members of the Home Guard and will be eligible for the same allowances and financial benefits. In order to avoid interference with local medical facilities, candidates for these appointments must obtain the permission of the local medical war committee, and one of their duties

after appointment will be to co-ordinate the available local facilities with the needs of Home Guard units. They will also be responsible for the training of stretcher-bearer squads which it is proposed to establish in Home Guard units together with the requisite number of medical orderlies for employment at aid posts. The organisation of these squads, whose members will retain their normal liabilities as combatant members of the Home Guard, will vary according to the requirements of individual units.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will this organisation be definitely under the local commanders of the Army Medical Service and really be working in with them as well as with the civilians?

Captain Margesson: This plan was all co-ordinated after consultation with the Central Medical War Committee.

BLACK-OUT REGULATIONS.

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists, particularly among the smaller boroughs in country districts, at the careless interpretation frequently given by the military authorities to the black-out regulations; and whether, with a view to the safety of the civilian population, a stricter enforcement will be imposed?

Captain Margesson: I am aware of the importance of this matter, and steps have been taken to impress upon all concerned the importance of complying with the regulations. A recent instruction provides for a systematic inspection of all buildings occupied by troops both shortly after the official time for black-out and periodically during the hours of darkness. Disciplinary action is invariably taken against offenders.

Captain McEwen: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that this complaint applies not only to troops in billets, but also to troops in camps in the neighbourhood of these boroughs?

Sir W. Davison: And will the attention of commanding officers be drawn to camp fires that are lit, to see that the embers are stamped out before black-out occurs?

Captain Margesson: The troops have to obey the black-out regulations exactly the same as civilians.

Mr. Spens: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend try to have some method put into operation in each town and village so that air-raid wardens and civilians can report to a responsible officer when lights are showing, as the difficulty at present is that no one knows to whom to report, and when complaint is made the Army authorities say they have no power to deal with the matter?

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: In view of the fact that manoeuvres are beginning all over the country, will my right hon. and gallant Friend send out special orders to the troops in regard to this matter?

Captain Margesson: indicated assent.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the Minister say whether inspections are to be made by the military authorities or whether the Civil Defence bodies have any authority in this matter?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir; it is the military authorities.

VEHICLES (ROAD ACCIDENTS).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause a statement to be circulated to the Forces that the heavy casualty lists due to reckless Army drivers are a disgrace to the Service; and whether he will make it clear that men in the Service are subject to the same regulations as civilians and are liable to prosecution?

Captain Margesson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 4th February. Strict instructions have been issued on this subject, and it is, I think, sufficiently well known that drivers of War Department vehicles must observe traffic signals and road signs and must comply with the speeds imposed by law in built-up areas and other special areas where a local speed-limit is in force. A driver who breaks the traffic regulations is liable to prosecution by the police, or to military punishment. In addition, War Department vehicles are subject to restrictions upon speed which do not apply to civilian traffic.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that these men are frequently given a driving schedule which makes reckless driving inevitable, and will he make inquiries and

satisfy himself on that, as I have it on very good authority; and is he also aware that men are given charge of very powerful and heavy vehicles with very inadequate training?.

Captain Margesson: The last point is a different one altogether. On the first point, I am quite unaware that these drivers are given schedules which make it necessary for them to drive at a speed greater than that allowed by law, and if my hon. Friend has a case in point, I shall be very glad if he will bring it to my notice.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Minister consider issuing a special Army Order calling attention to the necessity of conforming to civilian regulations by all ranks when driving cars and lorries?

Captain Margesson: I think the appropriate action has been taken.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is it not the fact that since special orders have been issued, there has been a good deal of improvement in the Army driving?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

CAMPS (INQUIRY).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether the judge appointed to investigate into the prima facie cases arising out of the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure will be authorised to receive documentary evidence in addition to that which was before the Select Committee?

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the reasons for which he decided to refer the Report of the Select Committee on Army Camps to a judge of the High Court, rather than to the Law Officers of the Crown or the Public Prosecutor?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The Select Committee did not find that there was a prima facie case that any serious offence had been committed. The Government have decided to ask a judge of the High Court to examine the papers to see if there is such a case. It is considered that a judge would be the most suitable person for the task. The question of procedure will be a matter for discussion with him, and ultimately for him, at a later stage.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a satisfactory reason for


the Government's unwillingness to go into these serious matters, as revealed by the Report of the Select Committee, by means of a public inquiry, and is he aware that the public is insistent that an inquiry should be made at once?

Mr. Attlee: I gave the reasons in replying to the hon. Member on a former occasion.

Sir W. Smithers: But they were not satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War (1), whether he will compare the items of the representative daily menu of food as issued to British prisoners of war in Germany, which has been obtained from official German sources, with the specimen dietary at Oflag VII. C/H, as reported by the protecting Power, and state the result;
(2), the number of calories contained in an average daily menu of food issued to German prisoners of war in Britain, in the dietary of Germans interned in the Isle of Man, and in the menu of food as issued daily to British prisoners of war in Germany; and whether each of these three menus contains the necessary vitamins?

Captain Margesson: The daily rations provided for German prisoners of war in this country, both officers and other ranks, contain 3,670 calories. The rations provided for German internees in the Isle of Man contain 2,852 calories, but internees working outside the camp on approved schemes of manual work, receive additional rations, which bring the caloric value of their diet to 3,345. Reports received through the Protecting Power indicate that the average caloric value of the daily rations furnished to British prisoners of war in German is 3,100 for officers, and 2,756 for other ranks. This is rather more than the caloric value of the latest dietary obtained from German official sources, so far as this can be calculated from the -details given. The rations issued to German prisoners of war and internees, have an ample vitamin content. No estimate of the vitamin content of the German rations is available, but there is evidence that the diet is not well balanced.

Strong representations have been made to the German Government in the matter.

Sir A. Knox: Is there any possibility of obtaining really correct information about what our people get in Germany? The two dietaries that we have been given are fundamentally different. For instance, in one, five grammes of potatoes is given as the daily ration, and in the other, 36 ounces. Which is correct?

Captain Margesson: I am aware of that difficulty. It is really a question of difference in time. As I am informed, the figures I have to-day are the latest available, and were given to us by the protecting Power.

Sir A. Knox: All the letters which relatives get from these unfortunate men in Germany complain of shortage of food. The men do not get enough to exist on.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend also inquire about medical supplies? In a letter which I have seen this morning, a man asks for a stethoscope to be sent, as the medical appliances are insufficient.

Captain Margesson: I will look into that.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War how many inspectors are employed by the International Red Cross to visit prisoners' camps; and whether, in view of the large number of French and Polish prisoners, as well as British, he will see his way to make representations through the British Red Cross that the number should be increased?

Captain Margesson: I am informed that the International Red Cross have four, or on some occasions five, inspectors who visit the prisoners of war camps in Germany. The question of an increase in this number is a matter for the International Red Cross Committee, and it is at present being considered by them.

Sir A. Knox: Surely we might press for this, as it is quite impossible for the work to be properly done without an increase in the number of inspectors?

Captain Margesson: I have drawn the attention of the International Red Cross to this matter, and have asked them to look into it.

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any free ration of cigarettes is made to prisoners of war in this country?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. Free issues of cigarettes or tobacco are made both to prisoners of war in this country and to British prisoners of war in Germany and Italy.

Captain McEwen: Do I understand my right hon. and gallant Friend to say that there is a similar ration issued in Germany?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the Minister say the amount of the ration?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir, I have that information. The ration is 2 ounces a week for German prisoners of war and 1 ¼ounces a week for Italians. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why the difference?"] I asked exactly the same question. The quantities correspond to those which Germany and Italy respectively undertook to provide for British prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DEER-FORESTS.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he has been taking, in view of the progressive diminution of grazing lands in Scotland consequent on the ploughing-up campaign, to make available deer-forest land for grazing and other agricultural purposes?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): A circular has been sent to the Agricultural Executive Committees for the Highland districts stressing the importance of seeing that the fullest use is made this year of deer-forest grazing and intimating that I am ready to take possession of any deer forest which cannot be put into full productive use by agreement with the owner. No forest for which stock can be found should be left ungrazed during the coming summer.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, he has taken over any deer forests, and can he give any indication as to how many sheep are at present being grazed on these forests?

Mr. Johnston: The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question is in the affirmative. We have already taken over two deer forests, and, if necessary, for the reasons given in my answer, we are ready to take over more.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of these deer forests?

Mr. Johnston: There are the Forest of Killilan, in Ross-shire, and the Forest of Benmore, in Sutherland.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the wide interest of this matter to the agricultural community in Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has in mind any other action in connection with it?

Mr. Johnston: I think I cannot go beyond the answer I have given.

Mr. Maxton: Have the terms been settled by the existing owners, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what they are?

Mr. Johnston: I could not do so without notice,

SCHOOL CHILDREN (EMERGENCY RATIONS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that teachers in Scotland have been anxious regarding the lack of emergency supplies of foodstuffs, including chocolate, in schools for schoolchildren in the event of the pupils being detained for several hours in school in consequence of air-raid alarms; whether some equivalent to the English circular 1535 on Air-Raid Precautions for Schools has been issued to schools in Scotland; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. Johnston: I have no evidence of any anxiety among teachers regarding the lack of emergency rations for children during school hours in the event of air raiding. The provision of such rations for children who might be compelled to stay in school owing to prolonged daylight alerts has not hitherto been considered generally necessary in Scotland, but the question will be kept continually under review. As far as air raid precautions in Scottish schools generally are concerned, I am sending the hon. and learned Member a copy of a memorandum which I have issued on the subject.

Mr. Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend say when that memorandum was issued?

Mr. Johnston: On 10th February.

Mr. Gibson: If I send to my right hon. Friend particulars of cases in Scotland where teachers have provided emergency rations at their own expense, will he look into them?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Does that memorandum contain information which might be useful to other Members of Parliament in other constituencies? If so, will my right hon. Friend send them copies also?

Mr. Johnston: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to consider that. I do not know whether the usual practice in sending out copies is to distribute from the Department or from the Vote Office.

Mr. Maclean: Members are usually asked questions by parents of children with regard to the steps that have been taken.

Mr. Johnston: I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SAFETY IN MINES (JOINT COMMITTEES).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries have set up joint committees for the purpose of dealing with safety questions?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): The number is approximately 140.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend doing his best to encourage the formation of these committees?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, we are encouraging their formation. The number of committees has been doubled since the Royal Commission reported.

VALLEYFIELD ACCIDENT.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes to take any further action in connection with the Valley field disaster following the decision of the Dunfermline Sheriff Court?

Mr. Grenfell: No, Sir. The decision of the Sheriff Court concludes the legal proceedings under the Coal Mines Act.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the report of the Commission and the fact that 35 lives were lost, what steps is my hon. Friend taking with regard to those responsible for this shameful travesty of the law?

Mr. Grenfell: The Mines Department made a recommendation on the matter which was submitted to the court. We have no further responsibility.

Mr. Gallacher: But is not my hon. Friend aware that there is deep feeling among miners following the decision of this court?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be now questioning the decision of the court.

Mr. Gallacher: It was a shameful decision.

AIR RAIDS (REFRESHMENT IN MINES).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will take such action as will provide heat and refreshment for miners when they are detained for certain reasons from ascending to the surface at the end of their shift?

Mr. Grenfell: If the hon. Member refers to delay in winding men occasioned by enemy action, I would suggest that the matter be raised by discussion between the representative bodies which usually deal with such matters in order that they may investigate the possibilities of providing the warm drinks or other form of refreshment which is suggested in the Question. I have not received any communication from the men in any district on this matter.

Mr. Taylor: Will not my hon. Friend take definite steps to meet this requirement?

Mr. Grenfell: I have said that I have not received any communication on the subject from the men.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK BOTTLES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the shortage of milk bottles, and what action he intends taking about the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Despite the appeals that have been addressed to them on this matter, many consumers do not return milk bottles regularly and promptly to their milkmen. This has created difficulties in some sections of the distributive trade. An Order is being prepared which will make persons who are negligent in the handling of milk bottles, or who wilfully appropriate them for wrongful purposes, liable to the penalties of the Defence Regulations.

Mr. Thorne: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman put himself into communication with the President of the Board of Education with a view to teachers instructing children not to destroy milk bottles?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: A great number of bottles can be found in cemeteries.

Sir W. Davison: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider some penalty being inflicted on people who strew the roadsides for miles with milk bottles, beer bottles and other kinds of bottles?

POTATOES.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the annual consumption of potatoes in Great Britain?

Major Lloyd George: During the period covering the Great Britain Potato Crops of 1929–1940, the average annual supply amounted to 4,500,000 tons, of which 3,500,000 tons were utilised for human consumption. Potatoes required for seed purposes and stock feeding, together with normal wastage which occurred during storage and distribution, accounted for the balance.

PLANKTON (WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND).

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that large areas of sea off the West Coast of Scotland are frequently richly charged with plankton, that small-scale experiments show that this is readily converted into nourishing food, and that important advances in our knowledge of plankton have been made at the marine laboratory at Millport, he will consider appointing a committee, equipped with the necessary

biological and engineering qualifications, to investigate the practicability of large-scale collection of plankton by mechanical separators?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his previous Question on this subject on nth March, in which I indicated that it is not economically practicable to obtain food from this source. In reply to the last part of the Question, I would remind my hon. Friend that committees already exist competent to give further examination to this matter if it were considered desirable.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is not the normal use of plankton to provide food for fish and consequently the immediate supply of food for human consumption is the fish that feed on the plankton?

Major Lloyd George: It is a very difficult thing to catch plankton, and as fish feed on it, it is more economical to catch the fish and thus get both.

SUGAR (BREWING).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what quantitiy of sugar was used for brewing purposes in the year ended September, 1940; and how does the percentage this represents of sugar normally used for brewing compare with the reduction imposed upon the use of sugar for confectionery and other manufactures?

Major Lloyd George: The year ended 30th September, 1940, included a period when sugar was not rationed, a period when sugar was allocated to the brewing industry on the basis of 70 per cent. of pre-war usage and a period when the percentage allocation was 60 per cent. The figures of sugar usage for that year would accordingly be misleading. The brewing industry is now rationed to 60 per cent, of its pre-war sugar usage; this compares with a percentage allocation of 60 per cent. to the chocolate industry and 50 per cent. to the sugar confectionery industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSFERRED WAR WORKERS.

Major Owen: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to minimise billeting difficulties, he will give instructions to local Employment Exchanges not


to consider applications for employment from outside their districts until the female labour in their own areas has first of all been exhausted?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): This is already the practice of the Employment Exchanges.

Major Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the opposite practice occurs and that on many occasions woman labour is drawn from areas from 10 to 20 miles away while there is labour available in the actual district?

Mr. Assheton: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to send me any example of that, I should be very glad to have it.

Major Owen: Certainly.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his policy to build accommodation, where necessary, for workpeople who have been moved into new areas for armaments production; and whether he will duly consider the dangers to health which arise from the occupation of their overcrowded billets?

Mr. Assheton: It is the policy of the Government to build accommodation where necessary for transferred war workers and a considerable programme of hostel and hutting construction is being pressed forward. In billeting transferred war workers every care is taken to avoid overcrowding, and in this connection any dangers to health which may arise locally are under constant review by the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Adams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the North of England there is considerable disquiet and discontent at the amount of overcrowded accommodation? Cannot alternative accommodation be expedited?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (WELSH NEWS AND PROGRAMMES).

Major Owen: asked the Minister of Information (1) whether, in view of the fact that the majority of people engaged in industry and agriculture in Wales are, by the nature of their

work, precluded from listening in to the Welsh news at five o'clock, he will arrange for the Welsh news to be broadcast at a more convenient hour, say seven o'clock in the evening;
(2) whether he is aware of the great and growing dissatisfaction in Wales with the brevity of the Welsh broadcast in the British Broadcasting Corporation programme; and whether he will arrange for a longer period to be allotted for this purpose?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): I regret that on account of the very great pressure on broadcasting time I cannot ask the B.B.C. to transfer the Welsh news to a peak listening hour, and for the same reason the Corporation cannot increase the time now devoted to programmes in Welsh.

Major Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has already been announced on the wireless that information at times of danger in this country will be broadcast? As the bulk of the people in Wales are occupied during the day, how can they possibly get to know the voices of the people who are making the announcement?

Mr. Nicolson: I understand that the unoccupied people are in a rather elderly category, and it is not likely that a large proportion will be employed at the time of the Welsh broadcasts.

Captain McEwen: Are not all these people bilingual?

Oral Answers to Questions — INFORMATION (DISSEMINATION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that air-raid precautions emergency committees throughout the country follow different practices with regard to the admission of the Press and the giving of information to the Press; and whether he will take steps to ensure that arrangements are made for the maximum dissemination of information essential for public safety?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I am aware that there is some diversity of practice in this matter, but much of this is due to the varying degrees


of secrecy necessitated on particular occasions by considerations of national defence. My right hon. Friend is anxious to secure dissemination of information to the public to the maximum extent compatible with security, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the difficulty of reconciling these two interests is often greater than may appear on the surface.

Mr. Adams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some emergency committees permit the admission of the Press while others refuse, that some give no information whatever and that others give a certain amount? In the general interest should there not be some common practice?

Mr. Mabane: As I have indicated, the practice varies greatly. In some cases there is no objection and in others there is much objection.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the practice of issuing statements, to be posted outside town halls, giving the amount of casualties in the Metropolitan police area? Is he aware that many citizens think these notices give the casualties from their particular district and not for the Metropolitan Police area, with the result that there is a considerable amount of alarm?

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman see that when information is given if: is more compatible with the truth than that which was given about the Clyde-side "Blitz" and the casualties incurred there? There is no reason why false information should be given to the public.

Mr. Mabane: False information was not given to the public.

Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why false information was given about the casualties on Clydeside? This is being talked about by many people there.

Mr. Mabane: No false information was given to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAW (PAPER-MAKING).

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the Paper Control Board has raised the price of straw for paper making from 15s. per ton to £5, the present controlled price;

that this price has had the effect of reducing the output of paper made from home-produced material; and will he investigate the matter with a view to a reduction of the present controlled price?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): There is no official controlled price of straw, but prices of straw for paper making have been agreed between the Paper Makers Straw Trading Company and the National Farmers' Union. The price that has to be paid is, of course, affected by the demand for straw for other purposes.

Mr. R. Gibson: Has the Minister been informed that agreement has been reached between the agricultural and paper-making industries in Scotland, whereby the farmers receive £4 per ton for their straw at the farm and the transport charges are borne by the paper-making industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — INFRA-RED PHOTOGRAPHY.

Sir J. Graham Kerr: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that infra-red rays possess a remarkable power of penetrating fog, and that infra-red photographs can be taken and developed so rapidly as to be of great value for the detection of dangers to navigation, such as other ships or neighbouring land; and whether he will take steps to ensure that ships over a certain tonnage and all ships licensed to carry passengers shall be equipped with the apparatus necessary for infra-red photography as an additional safeguard against such dangers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): While infra-red rays do penetrate atmospheric haze, extensive field and laboratory trials have shown that they do not penetrate fog and that it is not possible to use infra-red photography for the purpose of assisting navigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBED PREMISES (GROUND RENT).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Attorney- General whether he is aware that ground landlords of bombed sites are entitled to collect ground-rent for the duration of the war despite the fact that the buildings


thereon are uninhabitable; and whether legislation to right this wrong will be introduced?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As I have already stated in answer to previous Questions, the Government intend to introduce further legislation to deal with the rights of those whose houses have been damaged by enemy action. This legislation will contain provisions modifying the existing law where the damaged premises are subject to a ground lease.

Mr. Stokes: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to a recent case in Sheffield where the Duke of Norfolk agreed to the surrender of a lease on damaged property on the payment of three years' ground rent, and has that policy the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support?

The Attorney-General: I do not know the facts of that particular case.

Mr. Stokes: If I send the right hon. and learned Gentleman particulars, will he have the case looked into?

The Attorney-General: I should be very interested to receive that information.

Sir W. Davison: Owing to the great uncertainty in this matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend expedite the introduction of the Bill as soon as possible, as everything is held up pending its introduction?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister which Minister, or what Department, has responsibility for liaison or cooperation between the intelligence, counter-intelligence and secret services maintained by many different Departments; and whether he can give the House an assurance that this far-reaching branch of our war effort is under proper Ministerial supervision?

M. Attlee: My right hon. Friend can readily give the House the assurance asked for in the second part of the Question; as regards the first part, he regrets that it would not be in the national interest to give the information requested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Garro Jones: In view of the fact that this information has previously been given and that the Minister has since been changed, could any public interest be damaged by giving the information asked for now?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.

Mr. Culverwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great waste of time, labour and personnel in the tremendous amount of overlapping in the services of these different Departments, and will he look into this matter?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member will give me the information, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARCELS FROM OVERSEAS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of altering the system by which parcels, without limit in number, can be sent from overseas to persons in this country, in view of the discrimination in favour of wealth thus involved, and in order to save shipping space?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have been asked to reply. I am taking this matter up with my Noble Friend the Minister of Food, who is also concerned, and I will make a further statement in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASE-LEND ACT.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give this House an opportunity of formally and publicly thanking the United States of America for their sympathy and help, as shown in the Lease-and-Lend Act?

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that as Leader of the House my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the earliest opportunity after the passage of the Lease-Lend Act, and when the President of the United States had appended his signature to it, to make a statement. Speaking, as he then said, for Parliament and for the whole country, my right hon. Friend offered to the United States our gratitude for her inspiring act of faith. He trusts that you, Sir, and the House will have accepted his words on that occasion as a


formal and public expression of our thanks for the sympathy and help extended to us.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a statement as to the financial position of the Equalisation Fund?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The annual accounts of the Exchange Equalisation Account are submitted confidentially to the Public Accounts Committee. This is an old standing arrangement and I cannot go beyond it.

INCOME TAX (BRITISH AMBASSADORS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether salaries paid to His Majesty's Ambassadors in Foreign countries are subject to British Income Tax?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Yes, Sir, but expenses allowances are not, since they represent provision for the expenses connected with the Ambassadors' duties and are not emoluments.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that the salaries paid to Ambassadors are or are not subject to tax?

Captain Crookshank: I said "Yes, Sir." That means that they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (STATISTICS).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give particulars showing how the consumption of alcoholic liquors decreased in the years ended 30th September, 1939 and 1940, respectively, as compared with years unaffected by war?

Sir K. Wood: As the Answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The following quantities of liquors were retained for home consumption in the years specified:

—
Year ended 30th Sept., 1939.
Year ended 30th Sept., 1940.


Beer (standard barrels)
19,549,000
18,315,000


Spirits (proof gallons)
11,718,000
8,992,000


Wine (gallons)
16,277,000
12,128,000


British wines (gallons)
6,968,000
6,705,000

As regards pre-war years I would refer my hon. Friend to the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the production of alcohol and beer, respectively, in Scotland for the years 1939 and 1940, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: As the Answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been an appreciable diminution?

Sir K. Wood: I would like the hon. and learned Member to look at the figures.

The figures are as follow:

—
Years ended 30th Sept.


1939
1940


Spirits (excluding industrial alcohol) (Proof gallons).
27,581,310
11,195,002



Calendar years.



1939
1940


Beer (standard barrels)
1,557,000
1,551,000

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Attorney-General whether, in order to remove doubt, he will state whether the protection of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, is now afforded only to men in the Armed Forces or whether it can be invoked by men and women called upon to undertake work in war industry which necessitates a reduction in their incomes making it impossible for


them to meet rent and other liabilities; and whether, if existing legislation is insufficient, he will consider introducing amending legislation?

The Attorney-General: The provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, are not restricted to persons serving in the Armed Forces. Proposals for extending the relief given by that Act are contained in section 25 of the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Bill which has recently been introduced in another place.

Mr. Walkden: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why a man in service as a private gardener should have to vacate his tenancy when called up for national service?

The Attorney-General: That is quite a different matter, and depends upon certain provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the Attorney-General agree that those particular provisions are anomalous and lead to great injustice?

The Attorney-General: That matter has nothing to do with me, and the hon. Member had better put a question to the appropriate Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUTH SERVICE CORPS.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the new Youth Service Corps will collaborate with the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Federation of Working Lads Clubs, the Boys' Brigade and other similar voluntary organisations of long standing and proved merit; and whether he proposes to utilise the services of those who direct and control such organisations in the formation of the Youth Service Corps?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of Circular 1543, from which he will see that existing voluntary organisations are encouraged to co-operate, and are in fact co-operating, in the development of the local Youth Service Corps. I hope that they will continue to do so.

Sir E. Cadogan: In view of the fact that misgivings have been expressed by

those who have given long years of service to voluntary organisations, will there be any further opportunity for discussing this matter?

Mr. Ede: That is a question which should be addressed to those responsible for the Business of the House.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the most hopeful movements that have sprung up since the war began, and that it is bringing in large numbers of young people who never belonged to any of the excellent voluntary societies which existed before the war?

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend regards this as being an exceedingly valuable and spontaneous movement which has sprung up from the desires of youth itself.

Sir E. Cadogan: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there has not been too much time to express an opinion on this?

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUATION.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the results of an inquiry showing that, whereas some counties, acting as receiving areas, have sustained an increase in their population to the extent of about 30 per cent., other counties, equally suitable for reception, have increased 10 per cent. or less; and whether he will take steps to ensure that evacuees shall be evenly spread among available reception areas in the interests alike of safety and comfort?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The pre-war density of occupation per habitable room differed widely in different parts of the country, and the percentage increase in population cannot therefore be taken as a guide to the amount of spare accommodation. My right hon. Friend is concerned to ensure that evacated persons are distributed as evenly as possible over the available accommodation, but it must be borne in mind that some accommodation must be reserved for towns which have not yet been heavily attacked.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that in reception counties where there has been an increase of up to 35 per cent. in popu-


lation there are complaints of overcrowding? Surely, there ought to be better distribution of population in reception counties generally?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Member will agree that it is impossible in wartime to have an even distribution of population throughout this country. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is watching very carefully to see that when evacuees are sent to any particular district there is adequate accommodation for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to make a statement to the House upon new benefits of health insurance?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject, but he hopes to be able to do so shortly.

Mr. Collindridge: Is the hon. Lady aware of the grave delay there is in this matter, and can she state when she will be in a position to make a statement?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am fully aware of the delay, and, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he possibly can, when arrangements are made.

Mr. Thorne: Is the difficulty in coming to a decision in consequence of the delay caused by those who are responsible for carrying out the Insurance Acts?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir. I think the hon. Member will realise that there are a good many decisions to be taken and that this is a difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (EXPERT ADVICE).

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, with a view to getting more efficient, economic and rapid production, he will appoint a well-known firm of contractors as directors of construction on behalf of the Government and thus have the benefit at first-hand of their expert knowledge and experience?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): My Noble Friend is alive to the

necessity for ensuring efficiency, economy and speed in building construction, and I can assure my hon. Friend that full advantage has been and is being taken of outside control and other expert advice and assistance. He is not, however, prepared to agree that the appointment of a firm of contractors as directors of construction would be a desirable course to adopt in regard to the Government building programme.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister, as far as is possible, employ and use the experience of firms which have expert knowledge in carrying out large contracts and so avoid waste and extravagance?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure the hon. Member that no opportunity is missed of consulting employers and operatives in order that their advice may be available to assist us in carrying out the programme.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend assure us that people who merely have qualifications as quantity surveyors will not be put in charge, otherwise we shall have a repetition of the Militia camp scandal?

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL DISTRIBUTING TRADES (CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. Butcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade his plans for the consolidation of the retail distributing trades consequent upon the reduced quantity of goods for sale?

Mr. Lyttelton: I propose to refer to this matter during the coming Debate on the concentration of production. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this is the most convenient way of dealing with such a wide and difficult question.

BILLS REPORTED.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill); Bill, as amended, and Report, to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (VARIATION OF DIRECTORS' QUALIFICATION) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill to be read the Third time; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report, to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGE.

Order read for Consideration of the Complaint purporting to have been made by Mr. Boothby, Member for the County of Aberdeen and Kincardine (East Division), and published in the "Press and Journal" newspaper of 17th March, 1941, as constituting a Breach of the Privileges of the House.

Mr. BOOTHBY attended in his place, pursuant to Order [20th March].

Mr. Mander: I beg to hand in to the Table a copy of the journal containing the report to which I referred on the last Sitting Day.

The "Press and Journal" newspaper of 17th March, 1941, was delivered in and the passage complained of was read as follows:
After the meeting, Mr. Boothby said to a ' Press and Journal ' representative: ' I am in course of preparing a confidential memorandum which contains the full story which could not be put before the Select Committee or anyone else at the present time. I propose to hand a copy of this Memorandum to Colonel Duff and, as soon as the facts can be revealed, I will gladly appeal to the judgment of the constituency as a whole.

Mr. Boothby: I should like at once to apologise to the House for not being present in my place on the last Sitting Day; but, owing to circumstances over which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) had no control, I did, in fact, receive no notice that this matter was going to be raised, otherwise I should certainly have been here. I regret that this issue has been raised, and still more do I regret that once again I have to take up the time of the House. But on this occasion it will be only for a very few moments. There was a number of facts which, in the light of the report, I should have wished to bring to the notice of the Select Committee. Whether these facts would have been regarded by the Committee as relevant, or whether they would have affected the conclusions of the report, I cannot tell. But in view of the decision of the Committee not to accept certain evidence which I did put in, and also in view of their decision to publish the whole of the evidence, I did not press the matter.
The House may remember that in the course of my speech on 28th January I made reference to certain work upon which I was engaged at the outbreak of war. I said:
I gave some account of this work to the Select Committee, but they decided it would not he in the public interest to disclose it at present, and I bow to their decision. Some day the full story may be told." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1941; col. 450, Vol. 368.]
I told my constituents that in normal times I should have submitted myself at once for re-election, when I should have been able to present my case in full. For many reasons that is quite impossible today. It may well be, owing to the terms of reference, that some of the facts which I should like to have disclosed would not have been admitted as evidence by the Select Committee. I am myself convinced that if they could all be disclosed, my conduct would appear in a very different light. In these circumstances I feel that I owe it to myself that they should at least be put on record, especially in times like these when one never knows what is going to happen next.
I cannot remember precisely what I said in the interview with the Press after the meeting with my Association. Hon. Members well know what these interviews are. There were a number of reporters present when I left the meeting, all of whom simultaneously engaged me in conversation. I gave no separate interview. I do not think I ever mentioned the Select Committee, although the reference to it which appeared in one newspaper may well have been a natural deduction to draw from what I did say. But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I certainly do not wish to shield myself behind any accusations of misreport, and I accept full responsibility for what has appeared in the Press. To the best of my recollection I was asked when the full story could be told. I replied, "Not now," and added that I was writing the full story in the form of a private and confidential memorandum which I proposed to give to Colonel Duff in case I got blown up. I have since consulted one or two of the reporters, and they all confirm the fact that I said the reason was in case I got blown up. I may as well tell the House that it is a book rather than a memorandum. I have already written over 50,000 words, and it is not


finished yet, so it would have been difficult to present all to the Select Committee.
I confess that it did not occur to me that this would constitute a breach of the Privilege of this House. I certainly intended no discourtesy either to the Select Committee or to the House. Colonel Duff is not only the chairman of my Association, but one of my oldest and best friends. My idea was quite simple, that if I were to get knocked out, a copy of my memorandum should come to him under the seal of confidence to survive in his safe keeping, and that is all there was to it. If I have transgressed the Rules of the House, I offer my most sincere apologies. I am very willing to give my memorandum to the Chairman of the Select Committee, to whom in any case I had intended to send a copy. I trust that this explanation may prove to be satisfactory to you, Sir, and to this House. I now beg once again to withdraw.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

Mr. Mander: I am sure there is no Member of the House who will desire to continue this matter for one moment longer than is actually necessary, but I feel that, in fairness to the Select Committee, some opportunity should be given to one of them to make some comment on what we have just heard, because it appears to me that there is, at any rate, a suggestion that, if certain opportunities had been afforded which were not afforded, a different conclusion would have been arrived at. I hope that some member of the Select Committee will feel able to express his views to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member does not, I understand, desire to move a Motion. If the matter is to be discussed, there must be a Motion moved either by the hon. Member or by the right hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee, or by the Leader of the House.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): In view of the appeal made by the hon. Member who raised the matter, I submit that any statement made by the Chairman of the Select Committee might be considered as part of the statement made by the hon. Member who raised the

matter and not require the immediate moving of a Motion. If, however, there is to be any discussion, I would, of course, move the necessary Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think there would be any objection in the circumstances either to the Chairman or some other member of the Select Committee making a statement in the same way as a statement made by way of personal explanation.

Colonel Gretton: As Chairman of the Select Committee, I think the House will expect me to make a few observations. As a matter of fact, the Select Committee came to an end when its report was laid on the Table of the House. That report lay there for some days, and, on the Motion of the Prime Minister, was adopted, so that it became the decision of the House. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in his statement appears to think that the Committee were not willing to hear evidence which he desired to put before it. I think that suggestion can be completely answered by an examination of the terms of reference, which were to inquire into transactions in regard to Czech assets in this country, and particularly the connection of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen with those transactions. At the end of the proceedings, when all the witnesses had been heard, the last being Lord Nathan, on page 148 it will be found that the further proceedings of the Committee were discussed. Counsel representing the hon. Member asked the Committee if they would be willing to hear his client at the conclusion of his own statement, as the hon. Member wished to address his fellow Members, particularly on the conduct of a Member. That was a new point which I said we should have to consider and decide. On the following day counsel made his statement on behalf of the hon. Member. At the conclusion of it I, as Chairman, asked the hon. Member if he desired the room to be cleared. He said he did not, and he then proceeded to address the Committee. If hon. Members examine the proceedings they will find that the Committee was at all times ready to hear all evidence relevant to the terms of reference.
I should like to add that it was a painful inquiry and that we came to our


decision with reluctance. Every hon. Member of the Select Committee desires that the matter may now end. We have no feelings of resentment or ill will towards the hon. Member; we desired during the inquiry, and desire now, that he should have every opportunity to reestablish himself in the good opinion of the House.

The Prime Minister: I hope I shall correctly interpret the general sense of the House if I move that this House does not feel itself called upon to proceed further in this matter. I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has given us the feeling that he intended no kind of disrespect or reflection upon the fair fame and integrity of the House of Commons Committee, and in all the circumstances I believe that the House, having inquired with some particularity into it, would do well to let the matter drop.

Resolved,
That, having heard the statement of Mr. Boothby and a statement by the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member, this House does not desire to entertain the matter further." — [The Prime Minister"]

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Sir Herbert Williams: If it is in Order, may I suggest that it would be desirable and convenient to have a brief statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlining the major changes which have been made in the Bill by the Amendments passed in another place. In that way, we might save a considerable amount of time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Broadly speaking, the great majority of the Amendments are of a drafting or consequential nature. I think the most convenient way of dealing with them would be to indicate, when a particular Amendment is called, whether it is merely drafting or is an Amendment of substance and where any Amendment raised matters on which the House ought to be informed. either I or one of my hon.

Friends would take the opportunity of doing so. I would also propose, if it is in Order and convenient to the Chair, to indicate where a certain number of Amendments stand together and all deal with the same matter. Of course, if any hon. Member desires to raise any question on individual Amendments, my hon. Friend and I will do our best to answer him.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3— (Payments to be either of cost of works or by reference to value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 40, leave out from "possession" to the second "any", and insert "subject to".

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the two Amendments which follow it on the Paper—
In line 42, after "land" insert "any public right of way, right of common, or other right inuring for the benefit of the public or of any section thereof, and any restriction or liability imposed by or under an enactment," and in line 43, at the end, insert "but free from any other incumbrance"—
stand together and should be read together. They are really drafting Amendments, and the only one of the three that I wish to mention for purposes of explanation is the second Amendment, that to line 42. This Sub-section (5) of Clause 3 provides that the depreciation in the value of a hereditament caused by war damage should be ascertained by comparing its market value before the damage occurred with its value after the damage occurred, and the valuation is the valuation of the hereditament as a whole and not of any particular interest in it. Obviously, in such a valuation, account has to be taken of incumbrances that diminish the value of the land as such. It was ascertained on examination that as originally drafted the sub-section was defective because it required account to be taken only of such incumbrances, in so far as they consisted of restrictions inuring for the benefit of other land, and that did not cover public and statutory rights which would diminish the value of the land. The purpose of the Amendments is to put this matter right and in that sense they are actually in the nature of drafting Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: These three Amendments all raise questions of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 3, line 43, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will cause a Special Entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 5 after "value", insert
''ascertained in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with that which follows it on the Paper—in line 8, after the second "value", insert, "ascertained as aforesaid,". This Sub-section (6) of Clause 3 requires the value of any articles, which become available as materials, to be taken into account in settling the amount of a cost-of works claim or a value claim, and it was represented that doubts were likely to arise as to the manner in which the value of debris is to be ascertained and the time at which the value is to be ascertained. We thought it desirable that this matter should be dealt with definitely. Obviously, it raises questions of a detailed and technical character and we have therefore provided that these two matters should be dealt with by Treasury regulations. Under Clause 92, those Treasury regulations are subject to the control of Parliament. By this means we secure, in the first place, under the Regulations, a precise definition which no doubt will be desirable and secondly, as this will be done by regulation, it will be subject to Parliament. The matter is not of great importance but we thought it desirable to have it cleared up definitely.

Sir H. Williams: I think this is a very wise provision and, in passing, may I express the hope that the Regulations will be made promptly and that they will include provisions to prevent the destruction of debris which is going on all over the country at the present time.

Sir K. Wood: I will have regard to that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would save time if, with the general assent of the House, those Amendments which stand together and on which it is not desired to have any discussion were put from the Chair en bloc. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to indicate in the case of such groups of Amendments those which he proposes to accept. If the right hon. Gentleman would let me know the first Amendment which he does not propose to take, and if any other hon. Members call my attention to the fact that they wish to say anything on particular Amendments, perhaps the intervening Amendments could be disposed of in the way I suggest.

Sir K. Wood: I propose to move to agree with all the Amendments on the Paper, but the next Amendment to which I desire to call the attention of the House is that on page 6, line 1.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 19, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Determination of questions as to works and value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 1, leave out "Sub-section (2)," and insert "Sub-sections (2) and (3)."

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment leading to the next Amendment, in line 21, at the end, to insert:
(3) If any person is aggrieved by a determination of the Commission of any question which is under this Section to be determined by them, other than a determination from which an appeal lies under Sub-section (2) of this Section, he may appeal there from on any question of law to the High Court.
Provision may be made by rules of court for regulating appeals under this Sub-section, and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which such an appeal may be brought, for the determination thereof in a summary manner, and for requiring notice thereof to be given to the Commission, and may provide for the hearing and determination of any such appeal by a single judge, and the Commission shall be entitled to appear and be heard on any such appeal.
This Clause confers on the Commission powers to determine questions that arise on Clauses 3, 4 and 5. They are actually, in practically every case that one can foresee, merely questions of fact, but in the final stages in this House the possibi-


lity was raised that some questions of law might arise and that the Commission should not be left to decide them. This Amendment is made to meet that criticism. It will make it plain that any question of law will be taken to the courts by the Commission. A similar point arises in Clauses 39 and 42 where, as the Bill left us, the final word was left to the Commission, and similar Amendments will be made to those Clauses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 11, line 3, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19—(Properties liable to contribution.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 21, at the end, insert:
or
(ii) if the property consisted of a fishery; or
(iii) if the property consisted of any corn-rent or other rent-charge issuing out of land,
so, however, that nothing in paragraph (ii) of this proviso shall affect any liability to the said contributions in respect of properties consisting of or including such fishing rights as are mentioned in Section Six of the Rating Act, 1874.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In this case the question of Privilege arises as the Amendment deals with contributions.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment has the effect of exempting from contributions property such as salmon and oyster fisheries in tidal waters. Such properties are not likely to be damaged by enemy action, for if a bomb dropped on them it would be difficult to find out how much damage was done. In some cases where it includes the bed of an estuary it would not be land within the meaning of the Bill entitled to compensation, even if one were able to show that damage was incurred.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I understand that this Amendment applies only to tidal waters and that a later Amendment deals with the question of salmon pools and things of that kind. That being so, I do not wish to raise any question on this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A question of Privilege arising, an entry will be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 36, agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Amount of contribution and time for payment thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 28, at the end, insert "or of any other incorporeal rights."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, as it deals with contributions.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Besides the sporting rights which fall within the Rating Act, there are certain incorporeal rights which are contributory properties, such as easements which are rated, at any rate, in Northern Ireland though they are not in this country. This Amendment, therefore, puts them down to the 6d. rate. It is right that they should have the benefit of the lower rate irrespective of the nature of the land on which they are exercised. It may sound a little illogical, but the rights will mainly be over land which in itself will be at the lower rate. It would, therefore, be absurd to have a higher rate for an incorporeal right over land which is at the lower rate. The next Amendment, on page 19, is connected with this one, namely, in line 30, at the end to insert:
but nothing in paragraph (e) of this proviso shall be construed as affecting the amount of an instalment in respect of a property which was the subject of a valuation for rating purposes by virtue of the occupation of land.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the lower rate does not necessarily apply where the property is not the incorporeal right itself, but the land occupied by virtue of that right. Examples are land occupied by virtue of a way leave or a shop in a railway station which is occupied under licence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 23, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 25 (Rights over against mortgagees in certain cases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 8, after "any," insert "costs or."

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the question of costs and, therefore, may arouse some feeling in the minds of my hon. Friends opposite. The paragraph in question defines the mortgage debt which is to be compared with the price of acquisition or the value of the property for the purpose of determining the amount, if any, of the mortgagee's share of the contribution. The costs incurred by the mortgagee are often added to the mortgage debt and it is proper that they, as well as arrears of interest, should be included in the amount of the debt. The Amendment makes that clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 15, agreed to.

CLAUSE 26 (Liability for instalments in case of shooting, fishing and other rights).

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 16, leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert:
the two last preceding subsections.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
On this Amendment, which it consequential on the one immediately preceding it, I may perhaps be allowed to explain the point upon which the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked for information a few minutes ago. We are dealing here with exceptions to the general rule, which has been laid down in the Amendment already passed. Let us suppose, for example, that there is land which includes among other things a salmon river and that the property is worth £5,000 without fishing rights, that the fishing rights are worth £500, and that out of that sum for fishing rights £50 is attributable to a particular pool in that salmon river. Then let us suppose that a bomb falls into that pool, and that while it spoils the fishing in that pool it does not do any other damage to any other part of the land. The question obviously is, "Where does

compensation come in?" If the owner of the land is also the owner of the fishing rights then, of course, he would get the compensation, but if he is not the owner of the fishing rights then he should not get the compensation, because the actual damage to the pool does not affect him.

Major Milner: The whole thing seems fishy.

Captain Crookshank: The owner of the land in the ordinary sense of the word, as opposed to the rights of fishing, has himself suffered no damage, and the Subsection with which we are dealing exempts from the rate of contribution where throughout the risk period the properties were separately owned and not merely let off.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: What I want to be clear about is this: Supposing a river or a pool is damaged, perhaps by a poison bomb falling into it and killing the fish. Somebody has suffered a loss. First, I would ask, will any compensation be paid, and, secondly, if compensation is to be paid has any contribution in respect of that property found its way into the Exchequer? I can see that in some cases compensation will be paid, but I am not sure whether any contribution is to be paid, and if not I feel that to be unsatisfactory.

The Attorney-General: In the Schedule A assessment, the annual value takes into account sporting and fishing rights as being included in the sum for which the land is let, and if the fishing rights are of any considerable value they will be included in the Schedule A valuation. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that compensation will not be paid unless there has been a contribution, which should become effective under the machinery under which contributions are assessed.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 13, agreed to.

CLAUSE 38.—(Land belonging to foreign States and Sovereigns, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 6, after '' envoy '' insert:
a person to whom immunities and privileges are for the time being extended under Section


one or two of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will remember that persons who enjoy special privileges relating to exemption from taxation—diplomats—are exempted by the Bill from liability to pay contributions in respect of war damage. This Amendment is designed to meet the fact that diplomatic privileges and immunities are now being conferred, in connection with the war, upon members of foreign Governments established in this country and envoys accredited to such foreign Governments. This Amendment puts those persons in the same position under the Bill as are diplomats.

Major Milner: I take it that the net result of this Amendment will be that both diplomats and other representatives of other Governments will pay no contributions, and that if the property belongs to the country which they represent and is damaged that country will obtain compensation from the war damage fund without having paid contributions. It is just as well to have that on record, because while, no doubt, we are doing the proper and right thing it may conceivably involve us in a very substantial responsibility. It is an additional courtesy which has been extended to diplomatic representatives and is now to be extended to our Allies in the war, and note ought to be taken of it.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member's statement is correct. We take the view, and I think with the general approval of the House, that diplomats and others who are here for the purpose of establishing relationship with this country should not be asked to pay contributions, and that if their premises do suffer damage we should pay compensation.

Sir H. Williams: Will it cover the German Embassy, which is now occupied by the Swiss Government?

Sir K. Wood: I should like to inquire into that point.

Major Milner: Suppose I were the owner of a property and I let it to the representatives of a foreign Government. Is the obligation upon me, as owner or landlord, to pay the: contributions, or should I be

exempted equally with the Government concerned?

Sir K. Wood: I shall have to look into that matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Surely that is covered in the Bill. The owner of a property has to pay, irrespective of the manner in which he has let the property to a tenant. Another point I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into relates to the premises of the German Embassy, in which case there is a Crown lease. 1 take it that, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, there is no liability to keep that property in thorough repair, but if the property is destroyed, presumably compensation will be paid, because there is valuable consideration in that Crown lease. The right hon. Gentleman should inform the House clearly whether the Amendment that we are about to pass includes such buildings as the one I have described in Carlton House Terrace.

Sir K. Wood: This Amendment relates only to special representatives, who are now accredited here, owing to the presence of foreign Governments established in this country. I shall have to inquire just how the German Embassy is affected. I should say that we are absolved from any liabilities in respect of it.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Land held for charitable purposes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 3, after "purposes," insert
or to any other person in right of that interest,

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The intention of this paragraph is to put within the discretion of the War Damage Commission the payment of so much of a value payment as is in respect of an interest held for charitable purposes. The words in the Clause at present are
a value payment or a share of such a payment…payable…to the owner of the proprietary interest.
It is obvious when you look at various charities that the word "owner" is not


sufficiently extensive and that we must have regard to the case in which there may be a committee of management or some other persons who could not be definitely described as the owner of the property. To meet that point, the first part of this Amendment is moved. It is intended to enlarge the scope of the Clause. The remainder of the Amendment is of a drafting character to bring a mortgaged interest within the ambit of the Clause, as must be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 33, line 47, agreed to.

CLAUSE 40.—(Land occupied for purposes of undertaking. )

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 3, leave out from "undertaking" to the end of line 7, and insert:
to which this Section applies.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of a string of Amendments, which introduce the words:
except in so far as Parliament may hereafter determine.
They make it clear that Parliament has to legislate for public utility and certain other undertakings. That point was not sufficiently strongly put in the Bill; in fact, it was not mentioned at all.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I cannot say that the method chosen is a happy one. If you propose to deal with public utility companies in a further Bill, they should be excluded from this Bill. No doubt we shall be given some indication of what was intended. We have heard of legislation by reference, which means reference to something in a Statute in the past, but here is legislation by reference to some Statute which may, or may not, be introduced in the future. I do not see why the Clause could not have been passed in a very simple form and an announcement been made that it was intended to bring in another Bill which would amend the Clause. The effect of this legislation will be to put not only public utility undertakings but an unspecified list of undertakings, some of which are not public utilities, in a state of suspense, which will remain not only until a Bill is brought in dealing with public utility undertakings, but for an indefinite time

until some Government brings in a further Bill relating to the matter.
I do not know what would be the position of an undertaking which said: "We think we are going to be included in some future Bill that some Government may introduce, and therefore we propose to stand outside this contribution." Perhaps the Inland Revenue Department, or whoever will be administering the Bill, would say: "We do not think you are, and therefore you must pay at once." That seems to suggest that there might be unnecessary complications. The Bill should be in a straightforward form, leaving it to some future Bill to repeal or modify this Clause in some way. Suppose the Government were to postpone for quite a long time this second Bill; there may be reasons why the Government could not bring it forward. In those circumstances the Amendment, when put into the Clause, will leave not only public utility undertakings but other undertakings, who may think they are to be included, in a kind of suspended state, neither in nor out, so that they really do not know where they are. I cannot help feeling that this is not a very happy way of dealing with the matter, and I cannot see why it should not be dealt with along the lines I have suggested.

Sir H. Williams: I should like to reinforce what has been said by my right hon. Friend. My associates in the electricity supply industry are frankly rather unhappy, because they do not know where they are. I am not quite clear what is the exact significance of these Amendments, and I do not know whether that industry comes under this Bill, under the next Bill, or partly under each. I will give one example. In every house where there is a supply of electricity there is a meter which is fixed to the wall. In all, there are about £50,000,000 worth of these meters. Are they land, or are they chattels? Are they included under Part I, or are they removed from this Bill by the Amendment, or are they under Part II? There are tens of thousands of transformers which are sometimes counted as land and sometimes not, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to this matter, because it raises issues of very great importance to great masses of people who have large responsibilities, and who at the moment do not know where they are.
I think some indication ought to be given of the way in which the public utilities are being dealt with. I have referred to the electrical industry, because I happen to be connected with it, but what is true of that industry is equally true of the gas industry and to a less extent of water. The railways, of course, have also their difficulties in respect of their stores of goods. I do not suppose any railwayman knows whether the masses of stores which the railways carry and which are part of their undertaking are deemed to come under Part II of this Bill or whether they are included under Clause 40, which apparently relates only to land and does not relate to chattels. There are great difficulties which I think must be cleared up. It may be that when the new Bill is introduced there will have to be substantial Amendments, not only to Part I, but also to Part II, and it would help a great many people if the Chancellor could make a statement to clear up those difficulties.

The Attorney-General: In regard to the question of form to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it was quite clear to my right hon. Friend that he could not produce a scheme which would be fair to the public utilities, which have special difficulties, in time for inclusion in the Bill dealing with the rest of the property of the country, and it was, therefore, necessary to postpone the details of their scheme by laying down in this Clause that the form and amount of their contribution would be dealt with later. It is rather unusual to have to say that a matter cannot be dealt with under one Bill but will have to be the subject of another, and it is for that reason that it was thought desirable to insert this Clause. This Clause decides whether an owner of an interest is liable to the normal contributions under Schedule A as laid down by this Bill, or whether his contribution is one which cannot be fixed until the terms of the new Bill are established.
The words in this Amendment that have been referred to:
except in so far as Parliament may hereafter determine,
were inserted by way of clarity and warning, and in fairness to those excluded at present who might regard that exclusion as meaning necessarily that they would

not come under the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps when the matter is investigated it may be found possible to include some of the undertakings which are at present excluded and put them under this Bill rather than under the public utilities scheme.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Or perhaps even the other way round.

The Attorney-General: There may also be some the other way round. There are, however, the two classes, and although no doubt it would have been more satisfactory if we could have waited until the autumn of this year and have had a scheme which dealt precisely with the whole matter in one Bill, that was not possible. The question of whether any others are to be brought in is a matter which can be dealt with under the new Bill.

Sir H. Williams: Could not my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the position of the public utilities which do not know what part of their property is included under Clause 40 or what part is going to fall under Part II? I have quoted the example of the electricity meters, which represent probably £50,000,000 worth of value, and everybody is in doubt as to where they stand. It is on that question that some clarification would be very helpful.

The Attorney-General: That must be a matter of law. If there is to be any dispute, which I hope there will not be, there will have to be a test case about it. I will put the point to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot ask him to decide in advance on a difficult point of law.

Sir H. Williams: What I want is some assurance that we shall make a law which everybody can understand, because we are the law-making body.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Destination of payments in certain cases)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 31, at end, insert:
(4) Where a value payment is to be made in respect of war damage to a hereditament and immediately before the occurrence of the


damage a person had a right to remove from the hereditament an article comprised therein to which he would have been entitled on removing it, and either—
(a) there was subsisting in the article a proprietary interest owned otherwise than by that person or owned by him otherwise than in the capacity in which he had the right to remove the article (being an interest against which his right to remove it was exercisable); or
(b) the article was included in a mortgage of a proprietary interest in the hereditament, and that person's right to remove it was exercisable against the mortgagee; 
then, for the purposes of Section Nine of this Act the article shall be dealt with as a separate part of the hereditament, and
(i) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, the said Section Nine and the other provisions of this Act as to the vesting and devolution of the right to receive a share of a value payment shall have effect as if the proprietary interest mentioned in that paragraph had been owned by the person who had the right to remove the article, or owned by him in the capacity in which he had the right to remove it, as the case may be; and
(ii) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this Sub-section, Sub-section (4) of the said Section Nine shall not have effect in relation to the share of the value payment attributable to the article."

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not think the House will want me to go through this in detail. It makes provision to cover the case of what are called removable fixtures. Such things as separate mantel-pieces, a traveling crane, or a market gardener's greenhouse, I believe, have also been held to be removable fixtures. The point about them is that prima facie they go with the land but the tenant has the right to remove them. If the scheme of compensation did not cover them, the person might not have a right to remove them. This Amendment accordingly makes general provisions the purpose of which will be apparent to the House.

Mr. Bellenger: I can quite see the equity of compensating the real owner of removable fixtures, but previously in debate we have heard that, generally speaking, compensation will only be paid where a contribution has been paid. What is the position of the tenant owning a greenhouse? The learned Attorney-General has told us that he would be compensated in the event of damage

occurring, but does he contribute anything at all to the cost of the war damage insurance premium, or does the whole burden of the contribution for the premises plus the removable fixtures fall upon the owner? It is quite conceivable that the greenhouse might be very valuable, perhaps worth £400 or £500, and if that is included in the contribution to be paid at the rate of 10s. per cent. by the owner, the latter will not directly benefit by the compensation if war damage to the fixture in question occurs.

The Attorney-General: I said just now that compensation would not be paid unless a contribution had been received. I did not say it must necessarily have been received from the person who gets the compensation. If there is a long lease, a lease of any value, the contribution, of course, will have been paid. I agree that in the case of a short lease there will have been no contribution from the tenant. These cases, I think, will not come to very large sums of money; and it would be introducing unnecessary complexity to provide a rather elaborate procedure, allowing for recovery in part of compensation in respect of movable fixtures, but, no doubt, landlords who have movable fixtures on their property will have their eye on that point.

Mr. Bellenger: It will not be a comparatively small sum that is involved. Often mantelpieces and panelling, for instance, which are tenants' fixtures, are valuable. The point is that if you are going to make a provision to compensate the tenant, it is only fair that the tenant should make his contribution to the premium. I ask the Chancellor to bear this point in mind when he brings up Amendments, as he probably will, at some later stage. If inquiry is made of the Land Society and of the Auctioneers' Society, he may get figures in respect of tenants' fixtures and fittings which will convince him that there is a considerable sum involved, especially in the country areas.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton-Brown): This Amendment raises a matter of Privilege.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 44, line 13, agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Power to raise capital for defraying contributions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 21, at the end, insert:
 (6) Any expenses incurred by the Admiralty in discharging any liability as a direct or indirect contributor arising in respect of lands vested in them by virtue of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865, or the Naval Knights of Windsor (Dissolution) Act, 1892, or as mortgagees of a direct or indirect contributor arising by reason of an exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section Forty of the said Act of 1865, may be defrayed out of cash standing to the credit of the Greenwich Hospital capital account; and for that purpose the Admiralty may from time to time convert into money any securities for the time being held by them for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital and all money produced by any such conversion shall be paid into the Bank of England to the cash account of His Majesty's Paymaster-General, who shall carry it to the Greenwich Hospital capital account.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This affects Greenwich Hospital, and gives power for a contribution to be paid out of capital. Similar powers have already been granted to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 27, at the end, insert new Clause A:
(Liabilities to repair chancels, etc., not to extend to war damage.)
(1) A liability to which this Section applies to repair a chancel of a church or to repair any other ecclesiastical building or any part thereof, shall not extend to any repairs required for making good war damage.
(2) Where war damage occurs to a chancel of a church or to any other ecclesiastical building in respect of which such a liability exists, then, in so far as the discharge of that liability, as modified by the provisions of the preceding Sub-section, is, having regard to the extent of the war damage—
(a) impracticable, or only practicable at a cost which is unreasonable in view of all the circumstances; or
(b) of no substantial advantage;
the liability shall be suspended until the war damage is made good to such an extent that the discharge thereof is practicable at a reasonable cost and is of substantial advantage.
(3) Where, under the preceding provisions of this Section a liability is modified or suspended, all rights and remedies arising out of the non-discharge of the liability shall be modified or suspended accordingly.
(4) The preceding provisions of this Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.

(5) Where war damage occurs to a chancel of a church or to any other ecclesiastical building in respect of which such a liability exists, or to the church of which such a chancel forms part or to premises of which such a building forms part, the Commission shall, in exercising the powers conferred on them by Sub-section (4) of Section Thirty-Nine of this Act in relation to that damage, have regard to the circumstances affecting the church or those premises as a whole, and may make pro vision under that Sub-section in relation to the church or to those premises as a whole.
(6) This Section applies to a liability arising as mentioned in Section Thirty-One of the Tithe Act, 1936, or in any other manner what so ever except by virtue of a contract providing expressly for the execution of repairs required for making good war damage or by reason of a person's holding property upon trusts which authorise its application in the execution of such repairs."

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this new Clause would be, as from the outbreak of war, to relieve anyone liable to the repair of a chancel or any other ecclesiastical building from the responsibility to make good war damage. It would also enable the Commission to treat the church and the chancel as one unit, which is common sense. It does not affect many people, because there will not be many cases where this obligation rests.

Mr. Graham White: I am glad that this new Clause has been brought forward, because it will be of great value to college authorites and others. Does this Clause, in fact, relieve the lay rector of all liability for war damage for all time? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman remarked that it did not affect many people, but this question relates to one of the most extraordinary and obscure sections of our law. This new Clause refers to the Tithe Act, 1936; but the obligations of lay rectors derive, I think, from papal bulls. There was a case in which the chancel of a church had become insecure, and inquiries showed that 400 persons had liabilities in respect of it, and that most of them were quite unaware of those liabilities. If this new Clause relieves such persons of liability for all time, it will be very useful.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 46, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Interpretation of Part 1).

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 1, leave out Clause 58.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is proposed to re-insert the provisions of this Clause in a new Clause, which will include interpretations for the whole of the Bill. It has been represented that this would be much more convenient.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I take it that any alterations which appears can be discussed at a later stage?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Insurance schemes).

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 30, leave out, "in the United Kingdom."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises a matter of Privilege.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next hang together. It affects people carrying on business abroad who have some property in this country. It was previously provided that goods insurable under the business scheme must not only be situated in the United Kingdom, but must be insurable by a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bellenger: Is there any question about the nationality of such persons carrying on business abroad and owning property in this country?

Captain Waterhouse: Not in this Bill, but there is a general provision in our legislation dealing with payments to enemies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 50, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 25, and insert:
in respect of war damage to goods insurable under the Scheme in question which appears to the Board of Trade to have occurred on any occasion if the amount recoverable under the Scheme in respect of the damage is less than two pounds.

Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment gives effect to the principle contained in an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) on the Committee stage. That Amendment was handed in at the last moment as a manuscript Amendment. It was quite clear that the reduction from £5 to £2 would have added a very great deal to the work of those who had to assess the damage, and I resisted the Amendment. I found, on further consideration, that it could be done; and their Lordships have, therefore, inserted £2, instead of £5.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords "Amendments to page 56, line 11, agreed to.

CLAUSE 63.—(Power of Board of Trade to obtain information.)

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 7, at the end, insert:
( ) Where—
(a) under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section Sixty-One of this Act a payment in respect of the destruction of or damage to any goods has been made under either of the schemes at an earlier date than would be allowable under Sub-section (1) of that Section, and the Board of Trade have imposed conditions as to the application of the sum paid; and
(b) a person authorised by the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Sub-section has reason to believe that there are on any premises any goods acquired with the proceeds of the payment to replace the goods destroyed, or any goods repaired out of the proceeds of the payment,
the powers conferred by the last preceding Subsection shall be exercisable by that person in relation to those premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the said conditions have been complied with in relation to the goods as they are exercisable by a person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade in relation to such premises, and for such purposes, as are mentioned in that Subsection.

Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment gives the Board of Trade further powers of investigation in certain cases. Clause 61 (3) provides that the Board of Trade may make provisions respecting the manner in which an immediate payment of indemnity under the insurance scheme is applied. The Amendment to Clause 63 will give the Board of


Trade the necessary powers of investigation to secure that the provisions laid down under the Clause just referred to are properly observed. The powers of investigation to be conferred on the Board are similar to those conferred in the matter of the £1,000 limit. That is the only principle involved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 12, at end, insert new Clause B:
(Meaning of owner in relation to certain property falling within definition of 'goods.')
Where anything falling within the meaning in this Act of the expression ' goods ' has been so affixed to any land as to have become part of the land, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be owned—
(a) if there is any person who is entitled to remove it from the land, and would be entitled to it if he so removed it, by that person;
(b) if there is no such person, by any person having the fee simple in, or a tenancy or right of occupation of, the land."

Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is closely in line with the Amendment which the learned Attorney-General moved a few minutes ago and deals with the insurance of property which is removable or might, in certain cases, be removable from premises.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 62, line 28, agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(Miscellaneous amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 34, leave out from "thereof" to the end of line 39, and insert:
 (a) Would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, have been deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be owned at any time by the person from time to time carrying on the business.

Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of a little series of Amendments—in page 62, line 44; page 63, line 10; page 63, line 39; and page 64, line 2. The object of the Amendments is

to make clear who is responsible for insuring the different parts of a ship at different times of the ship's construction. If a contractor has a contract with a shipbuilder for part of a ship he is responsible for insuring that particular part until it is handed over to and accepted by the shipbuilder. If, on the other hand, the shipbuilder is responsible, the responsibility will continue with the shipbuilder until the ship is handed over to and accepted by the shipowner, and so on, with the sub-contracts. The intention is that of the original Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment raises a question of Privilege and the necessary entry will be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 64, line 2, agreed to.

CLAUSE 79.—(Definition of "war damage")

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 2, at the end, insert:
" (3) References in this Act to the occurrence of war damage shall be construed as references to the taking of the action or measures specified in subsection (1) of this section from which that damage results.
(4) In determining the value of a hereditament, or of a proprietary interest in a hereditament, in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of war damage, it shall be assumed that all war damage which is known at the time when the valuation is made to have resulted from the taking of the action or measures in question could have been foreseen immediately thereafter."

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The reference in the Bill is to the occurrence of war damage in places where what is meant is the date when the bombs fall. Under that definition war damage might occur through water and other things afterwards, and it is important to make it clear that where these words are used it means the moment the bomb falls. There are other conditions in the Bill under which the Commissioners will consider the value of properties immediately after the occurrence of the damage. When they come to make that calculation they have also to consider all the damage which is within the definition of "war damage," some of which might not have occurred immediately after the occurrence


of the bombing. This is really a drafting amendment to clear up these two points.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 16, after "loss," insert "of."

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 80.—(Avoidance of duplication of payments in respect of war damage.)

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 39,after "His Majesty" insert:
or by a civil defence authority acting as such.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, the one in line 44, and the one in page 66, line 15, stand together. The House may remember that Sub-section (2) of Clause 80 as it now stands prevents duplication of payment for war damage in the case of payments made by the Crown. The Sub-section is mainly of importance in connection with ex gratia payments. It has been pointed out to us that local authorities also make ex gratia payments in two classes of cases in connection with their Civil Defence functions. These payments rank for grant or reimbursement out of public moneys and should be provided for in the same way as payments are made by the Crown. The two classes of cases are as follow: (1) Where the local authority has hired or borrowed vehicles for Civil Defence purposes, it makes payment for war damage for the vehicle; and (2) where the local authority also makes payment to Civil Defence personnel for war damage to their clothes which has occurred while they are on duty. In both these cases the payments are made in accordance with the directions of the Ministry of Home Security.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 44, after "His Majesty" insert:
''or by a civil defence authority acting as such

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Clerk will make the necessary entries in regard to the two preceding Amendments.

Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 15, at the end, insert:
In this Sub-section the expression ' civil defence authority ' means a local authority on whom functions have been conferred or imposed by or under the Civil Defence Acts, 1937 and 1939.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question put, and agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, as a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment just agreed to, in page 79, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Section eighty shall have effect as if for the reference to the Civil Defence Acts, 1937 and 1939, there were substituted a reference to the Civil Defence Acts (Northern Ireland), 1938 and 1939.
This Amendment stands on the Order Paper and is consequential to the Lords Amendment in page 66, line 15. The Third Reading in the Lords was taken immediately after Report, and it was not possible in the time available to consult with the appropriate authorities. This consequential Amendment now remedies that fact.

Mr. Benson: Is it possible for the Government to put an Amendment down at this stage? We are considering the Lords Amendments, which is by no means a Committee stage.

Captain Crookshank: It is consequential.

Mr. Benson: Even so, is it permissible under the Rules of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think a consequential Amendment is permissible. We do not have formally to disagree with the Lords.

Major Milner: I take it that this Amendment will have to go back to the House of Lords, as it has not previously been before this House or the House of Lords. Am I correct?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I believe that the Lords will have to agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 82.—(Payments under Parts I and II to be subject to conditions in case of non-residents.)

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 11, at the end, insert:
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of this Section may contain such provisions (including penal provisions) as appear to the Treasury to be necessary for securing the due operation and enforcement of the regulations.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Clause 82 enables the Treasury to make regulations laying down the amounts and conditions of payments to be made to persons who were not resident in the United Kingdom when the payments fell due, and the Amendment now proposed is because it is necessary that there should be sanction for the observance of the conditions imposed upon the making of payments by persons abroad. The form now proposed in this particular Amendment is the same as in Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I was interested to know that there is a precedent for the use of these words, but is there any limit to the power of the penalties which the Treasury can impose, or are we entirely dependent upon the good will of the Treasury? I do not suppose that the Treasury will impose improper penalties, but it seems to me that if there is no limit, we are handing over a very big power to the Department. I shall be glad to know what, if any, are the limits imposed upon the Department.

Sir K. Wood: I understand that these regulations have to be laid before Parliament.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 67, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 86.—(Provision as to certain mutual insurance schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 15, leave out "the private chattel scheme," and insert:
either of the schemes.

Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next Amendment are designed to allow private insurance schemes to cover risks which are not coverable under the business scheme. Any private insurance company may form a scheme to insure any chattel, jewellery, picture or work of art of a value above the limits of the Government schemes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 69, line 18, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 7, at the end, insert:
( ) Where the persons entitled to participate in the distribution of any such fund as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, or the shares in which persons are entitled to participate in the distribution of the fund, are, under the deed or instrument regulating the application of the fund, to be ascertained by reference to any date specified in the deed or instrument, the deed or instrument shall be construed, for the purposes of a distribution made by virtue of the last preceding subsection as if the said date were the date of the passing of this Act.

Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the winding-up of mutual insurance companies and is consequent on this Bill. The new Subsection to Clause 86 is to cover cases where the articles of mutual insurance societies do not provide sufficiently for the winding-up of the Fund during the war. This contingency was never expected when the companies were formed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 71, line 4, agreed to.

CLAUSE 94 — (Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 14, leave out Clause 94 and insert new Clause C:

(Interpretation.)

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say: —

"agricultural land" and "agricultural buildings" have the same meanings as in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, except that "agricultural building" includes a farm-house occupied in connection with any agricultural land and any agricultural cottage so occupied which is on or contiguous to that land;

"agricultural cottage" means, in relation to any land, a house used as a dwelling-house of a person who is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed;

"building" includes a building in an incomplete state, and in relation to such a building the expression "use" includes potential use;

"contributory property" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section Nineteen of this Act, "contributory value" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section Nineteen thereof, "direct contributor" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section Twenty-Three thereof, and "indirect contributor" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section Twenty-Five thereof;

"Defence Regulations" means regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, or the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940;

"emergency powers" means powers conferred by Defence Regulations, by section fifty-two of the Telegraph Act, 1936, or by section seven of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, or exercisable by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown; and "exercise" includes, in relation to emergency powers, a purported exercise thereof;

"family" means, in relation to any person, any one or more of the following, that is to say—
(a) his wife, son, daughter, father, mother; and
(b) any person, whether related to him or not, who is wholly or mainly dependent upon him;

"goods" does not include money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidences of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purpose of a business, but, subject as aforesaid, includes all corporeal property neither falling (whether generally or in relation to any particular land) within the meaning of the expression "land" as hereinafter defined, nor deemed, for the purposes of section forty-one of this Act, to form part of a highway;

"land" means land in the United Kingdom, and—
(a) includes any buildings or works other than plant or machinery excluded by paragraph (d) of this definition, and other than any works used mainly or exclusively for the exhibition of advertisements and comprised in any property as respects which the proviso to subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act has effect by virtue of paragraph (i) of that proviso) situated on, over or under land;
(b) includes anything which, on a valuation for rating purposes for the time being in force made by reference to the accounts, receipts, profits or out-

put of an undertaking, was treated as the subject of an occupation enjoyed by the person carrying on the undertaking;
(c) includes, in relation to land not comprised in a hereditament for rating purposes which is the subject of such a valuation as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, such plant and machinery as would, if the land were a hereditament to which section twenty-four of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, applied, be by virtue of the provisions of that section and of the Plant and Machinery (Valuation for Rating) Order 1927, deemed for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section to be a part of the land, or, where the land is a hereditament to which the said section applies, such plant and machinery as is so deemed for those purposes to be a part of the land;
(d) does not include any plant or machinery other than such as is included by virtue of paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this definition;
(e) does not include any crop, whether grown for food or not, and does not include trees, except trees forming part of a hedge and trees whose value for shelter or amenity is greater than their value for felling or for the growing of fruit for sale;

"making good" includes, in relation to war damage, demolition or clearance requisite as a preliminary to, or in the course of, the making good thereof;

"mortgage" does not include a floating charge, but, subject as aforesaid, includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth;

"net liability" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-five of this Act;

"owner," in relation to a proprietary interest, has the meaning assigned to it by Section forty-five of this Act;

"prescribed"—
(a) in Part I of this Act, means prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury; and
(b) in Part II of this Act, means pre scribed by order of the Board of Trade;

"proper cost" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (3) of Section three of this Act;

"proprietary interest" means, in relation to any hereditament or property—
(a)the fee simple in the land comprised therein or in any part of that land; and
(b)any tenancy of that land or of any part thereof, other than a short tenancy;

"rating authority"—
(a) means a rating authority under Section one of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925;
(b) in relation to London, has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2)


of Section seven of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928;
(c) in relation to the Isles of Scilly, means the Council of the said Isles;

"relevant date" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section twenty of this Act;

"risk period" means the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and ending with the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one;

"Schedule A" and "Schedule D" have the same meanings as in any enactment relating to Income Tax;

"short tenancy" means a tenancy granted for a term of seven years or less(without aright of renewal which would enable the tenant to prolong the term thereof beyond seven years), and includes—
(a) a tenancy granted for a term of more than seven years but subject to a subsisting right of the landlord to determine the tenancy at or before the expiration of seven years from the beginning of the term;
(b) a tenancy from year to year;

"Special Commissioners" has the same meaning as in the enactments relating to Income Tax;

"temporary works payment" has the meaning assigned to it by Section five of this Act;

"tenancy" includes a tenancy under an under-lease and a tenancy under an agreement for a lease or under-lease, but does not include an option to take a tenancy and does not include a mortgage;

"war damage" has the meaning assigned to it by Section seventy-nine of this Act;

"works" includes any structure.
("2) For the purposes of this Act an activity shall not be deemed to be other than a business by reason only that it is of a professional nature, or that it is not carried on for gain.")
(3) In considering for the purposes of this Act the length of time which any tenancy, other than such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of the next succeeding sub-section, has still to run at any date, it shall be assumed that the tenant exercises all options to renew the tenancy which are avail able to him at that date or fall to become available to him thereafter, and does not exercise any similar power to determine the tenancy, and that the landlord exercises any power to determine the tenancy which is available to him at that date or becomes available to him thereafter.
(4) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) a tenancy which by virtue of subsection (6) of Section one hundred and forty-nine of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to leases for lives and similar tenancies), takes effect as a tenancy for a term of ninety years determinable in the manner provided by that sub-section shall be treated as having, at any date, twenty or more, but less than twenty-five, years to run: and

(b) a tenancy granted for any term, but subject to a power to determine the tenancy on or after the happening of any event, shall be treated as having still to run, at any date, a period of twenty or more, but less than twenty-five, years:
Provided that where at that date less than twenty years of the term is unexpired, the tenancy shall be treated as having then still to run a period equal to so much of the term as is then unexpired.
(5) References in this Act to any other enactment shall, save where the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended by or under any subsequent enactment, including this Act."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a Privilege Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This brings together the Definition Clauses in the original Bill. There is some slight change in the definition of land which deals with plant and machinery. In regard to tenancies, they are defined as not to last more than seven years. Under the Bill as it was originally drafted a tenancy covered a longer period and the landlord was given the right to break it at the end of seven years. This Amendment provides that should it last longer, it should not be regarded as a tenancy within the Bill.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I quite appreciate that where a tenancy gives a landlord the option of breaking it at the end of seven years, that is a short tenancy during the first seven years, but the question arises if a landlord has not, in fact, broken it at the end of the first seven years. The Amendment we are now discussing reverses the position in that respect. These tenancies are rather unusual. I remember that when I was discussing the matter with the late Lord Snowden, neither he nor the Department believed that there were such tenancies, but I was able to convince them, from my own experience, that there were. The fact is that where I live I have a tenancy of this kind, and to that insignificant extent the question is one that affects my own interest. The common form of these tenancies is that the tenancy is for 21 years with an option, equally on the landlord with the tenant, that it can be broken either at seven years or at 14 years, and therefore, for all legal pur-


poses, except for the extra stamp on another agreement, it is really a question of a succession of septennial tenancies, because after the first seven years, if the tenancy is not broken, it again becomes a seven-year tenancy, which can be broken at 14 years, and again, if not broken, it goes on to the end of the twenty-first year.
In my opinion, such a tenancy, throughout the whole of its existence, ought to be treated as a seven-year tenancy. It is clearly a seven-year tenancy in the first period; then one comes to the second period; and in effect, the landlord and the tenant agree to a tenancy of seven years. 1 take exception to this sweeping Amendment. I feel that it ought not to go as far as it does. We ought to make it clear that where a tenancy can be terminated by either party at the end of the second seven-year period, even in that second period it ought to be regarded as a short tenancy. I understand the case for the other side. It is that where a tenancy is for a longish period, and a great part of the period has run, the fact that it is to be terminated in the course of two or three years does not make it a short tenancy. But as I have said, in effect it is a question of a succession of septennial tenancies, and I do not see why the Amendment should go as far as it does. I think it would be better if it were modified to the extent I have suggested.

Mr. Benson: I wish to support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Where there is power on both sides to break the lease, it really cannot be held to be a long lease. Let me give the House the analogy of an ordinary annual tenancy which can be terminated by either party every 12 months. One might as well argue that an annual tenancy which has run for seven years and has not yet been terminated should be regarded as an eight-year lease. The fact that neither party is bound beyond a certain date seems to destroy the whole basis of the idea of what a normal lease is, and certainly it cuts at the root of the idea of the ownership of rights in property under this Bill.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to raise a point concerning short tenancies. I take it that this provision will not apply to the

end of a long lease, with less than seven years to run, but what will be the position where, as sometimes happens, there is just less than seven years to run, arising out of the unexpired portion of a long lease, and the tenant decides that he would like to carry out certain alterations, to which the landlord says he will agree if the tenant will surrender the balance of the long lease and enter into a new lease at a higher ground rent? Would this be construed as a short tenancy merely because the balance of the long lease, which had less than seven years to run, had been surrendered and a new lease granted for the exact term which had to run under the old lease, but at a higher ground rent? Another matter to which I want to refer is the definition of "mortgage," which states that the word "mortgage"
does not include a floating charge, but, subject as aforesaid, includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth.
Am I right in assuming that, generally speaking, this includes bank mortgages? The Chancellor will remember that at an earlier stage in the proceedings on this Bill we asked for bank mortgages to be included as having to pay their proportion of the premium.

The Attorney-General: The definition of "mortgage" goes much wider than the Clause which deals with the payment of a proportion of the premium, and covers the mortgages involved in many other parts of the Bill. As far as the payment of a portion of the contribution is concerned, bank mortgages are excluded.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not this definition include them?

The Attorney-General: Bank mortgages are excluded by the express provisions of the Clause which deals with contributions. This is a general definition of "mortgage" wherever mortgage is mentioned in the Bill and where the Clause in question does not expressly exclude a definite class of mortgages. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenǵer), if a person enters into a five-year lease, it is a short tenancy and it does not matter what sort of negotiations may have led up to that lease. If I correctly followed the case which he quoted, I think the posi-


tion would be that if the lease had not come completely to an end and was surrendered, and then a further lease was entered into on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, it would be a short tenancy.

Mr. Bellenger: Not necessarily.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member will look at the definition, he will see that a short tenancy means a tenancy granted for a term of seven years or less. If the case is one in which a lease is granted for seven years or less, it is a short tenancy. I am sorry that in making a small change which we think is fair on the whole, we have done a thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) thinks is a mistake. I agree it is a matter on which one can argue both ways. It may be that I shall not be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept my view, just as he has not quite persuaded me to accept his; but I think there is a difference between parties sitting down and clearly contemplating a period of 21 years and parties sitting down aud providing simply for seven years. One may say that it is a fine difference in law, but I think that in practice it is a substantial difference. There are also some leases in which the landlord has a right to break, but not the tenant, and I think that on the whole the provision is a right one. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will want a long discussion on this matter. It is, I think, on the whole fair, and in any case there will not be many people affected by it.

Question, ''That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 95.—9( Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 27, after "Health, "insert:
or to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or to the Board of Education.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, and the next page of Amendments, down to and including page 76, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (20), are Amendments to the Scottish application Clause, and in every case they are consequential upon decisions which this

House has already taken. I shall be glad to answer any questions which may arise.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When the Lord Advocate says "consequential," does he mean that these Amendments are consequential on other provisions, excepting the Lords Amendments?

The Lord Advocate: What I mean is that the changes here embodied have all been rendered necessary, either by changes which this House has made on the Recommittal stage, or by Amendments made in another place with which this House has now agreed. There is no new point raised in these Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 76, line 34, agreed to.

CLAUSE 96—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 77, leave out lines 37 and 38, and insert:
( )Section eleven shall have effect as if in Sub-section (1) thereof for the word 'area' in the first place in which that word occurs there were substituted the word' district', and as if for the words' In this Subsection the expression "area" means the area of a local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act, 1936,'there were substituted the words 'In this Section the expression "district" means the district of a local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act (Northern Ireland), 1939.'
( )Section nineteen shall have effect as if in the proviso to Sub-section (1) the words from ' so, however' to the end of the proviso, and the proviso to Sub-section (2), were omitted.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, and some subsequent Amendments, relate to the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. The only Amendment of substance is that contained in the second Sub-section to be inserted in page 78, line 9, which adapts the Clause in relation to tenement blocks in Northern Ireland. The need for special provision in the case of Northern Ireland arises out of the fact that in Northern Ireland these blocks are not treated as one contributory property, but as several, owing to the difference of the manner in which Schedule A assessments are made there.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 79, line 9, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 86, line 37, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE—(Payments under Part I in cases of Repeated Damage.)

Lords Amendment: In page 86, line37, at end insert:
7.In this Schedule references to wardamage occurring, or sustained, on any occasion shall be construed as including references to war damage that results subsequently from the taking on that occasion of such action or measures as are specified in Sub-section (1) if Section seventy-nine of this Act.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it dear that reference in Schedule 3 to war damage occurring on any given occasion includes damage resulting from the falling of a bomb or other events which took place on that occasion, whether arising immediately or accruing, or revealed subsequently.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think that I need detain the House very long on this Bill. It is a Measure which is well known to the House in ordinary times, and it arises generally towards the end of each year. Actually we have not introduced such a Measure since December, 1938, when £25,000,000 was asked for. That sum has not been quite exhausted, and at the end of January just over £23,000,000 of it had been drawn. Therefore the time is now ripe for us to come to the House with a further Measure. In the very nature of things to-day, the demands of local authorities cannot be as great as in normal times, because so much of their expenditure is now financed directly by the State. Secondly, of course, there is such a very big reduction, in fact an almost absence, of new building, which was the chief purpose for which these loans were created, that there is not an

opportunity for spending very much. That is why, under Clause 2, I am only asking for £5,000,000. The time has come for reappointing the Commissioners for a further five years. That is provided for under Clause 1. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the remission of the small amount of arrears of principal and interest.
The really interesting and novel part of the Bill is in Clause 5, which is introduced as the result of an answer that my right hon. Friend gave on 18th instant to a Question asking whether he was now preparing to lift the ban on the conversion of stocks issued by local authorities where an option of repayment can be exercised. Since the war started this ban has been in existence, because the Government felt that they did not wish somewhat similar classes of borrowing to come into the market which might be in competition with their own borrowing. An ingenious way of getting over that difficulty has been propounded, that is, that the authorities which are now in a position, after due notice, to make conversion offers will be allowed to do so, and, if any money is required for the purpose, it will be provided by this fund instead of by ordinary market arrangements. That means that it will not be competing with Government borrowing-The amount involved is at present within the proviso which my right hon. Friend made in his answer, that he is prepared to consider applications by local authorities for permission to give notice of repayment of stocks carrying more than 4 per cent. interest. There is something like £20,000,000 at present which might be converted if so desired, and during the present calendar year there will be something like £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 more coming in, so that the field over which we are ranging is a maximum of £34,000,000. As no criticism has been heard of that proposal of last week, I hope it has commended itself to hon. Members and to people outside who are interested in following these matters. This is a novel Clause in what used to be an annual Bill, but I am sure it is the right place in which to put it, and it is the only way in which we could carry out the undertaking.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Apart from Clause 5, this Bill is in common form, though it is longer than usual since we had a similar Bill. With


regard to Clause 5, I think it is a very ingenious method of meeting what was felt to be a difficulty by the Treasury. Personally, I do not share that feeling. I always thought that the existence of high interest-bearing stocks belonging to local authorities was injurious to public borrowing at low rates of interest, and I have always believed that the sooner they were allowed to convert the better, subject always to the fact that their conversion offer was couched in terms agreeable to the Treasury, because, clearly, the market being what it is, if you couch the terms agreeably, the public will take up a new offer. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now agreed to allow these conversions to take place. "I am not at all anxious about the amount of money that people want to receive in cash. I hope that a little experience of this procedure will enable him to do what he intended in reply to a Question from an hon. Friend of mine when he made the original announcement, that he hoped to extend it later below the figure of 4 per cent. I should like to ask whether the £5,000,000 which the Commission is entitled to borrow under Clause 2 includes the sums payable under Clause 5. I rather gather that it does, but I should like to be quite certain that it is not a separate sum that is going to be borrowed. I support the Second Reading.

Mr. Benson: The first point I should like to raise is in regard to the general policy of the Public Works Loans Commissioners in selling farms and lands on which they have foreclosed. I see that something like 2,750 acres have been sold during the past year. That is not an exceptional amount. There is a very large number of mortgages, covering a very large amount of land, which are in default now and I assume, if the present policy is continued, that land, when it comes into the possession of the Commissioners, will be sold as and when they can. I think that is a mistaken policy. I think it very desirable that we should retain land rather than sell it, very frequently at practically a knock-down price. Government Departments are always buying land and, when they have to buy it in the open market, they have to pay a far higher rate than the Local Loans Commission would get when they sell. For instance, prior to the war the

Prison Commissioners were scouring the whole of the South of England for land for a camp prison, but were unable to find it. Why we should dispose of land when it comes into our hands I do not know. I certainly think it a bad policy and one which should be reconsidered.
There is another point in regard to the position of the Local Loans Fund. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked whether that £5,000,000 was to cover the underwriting of the municipal conversions. As drafted, the Bill is extraordinarily obscure, but it seems quite obvious that, whether or not it comes out of the £5,000,000 mentioned in Clause 2, the money is to come out of the Local Loans Fund whether it is lent by the Commissioners or the Treasury. If it does not, there is no point in introducing this matter into the Bill. A rather unusual position is created. Not only has the Local Loans Fund to find the money for the usual loans to local authorities, but now it has under-written something like £34,000,000. The total amount of this cash available now in the Local Loans Fund is only £2,500,000. I do not think that will be enough to meet the conversion. If we are to judge by the only conversion we have made since the war a great deal more than that will be required. The 4½percent. Conversion Loan was a "flop." For many months the various Government Departments were gradually preparing the market by purchasing 4½percent.stock and when the conversion was announced the stocks became in effect a very excellent six months Bill and the finance houses absorbed it greedily. There was a gradual accumulation of the stock into hands which intended to convert or which were compelled to convert. But the amount of non-assented stock was over £100,000,000; that is, anything between one-half and one-third of the stock was left in private hands.
If we are not to have a similar fiasco in the municipal conversion, the £2,500,000 which is all the money available in the Local Loans Fund will be inadequate and it will be necessary to issue fresh local loan stock. I do not think there has ever been a matter in the history of the British Treasury which has been so abominably managed as the Local Loans Fund. Money has been raised at enor-


mous discounts, in some cases amounting 10 50 per cent. The result is that the Local Loans Stock amounting to £429,000,000 gross carries a burden of £141,000,000 discount, a burden which ought never to have been allowed. Local Loans Stock is redeemable at par, and the result is that when it is redeemed very large blocks of it will receive 100 percent. premium on the rate at which it was issued. I do not need to stress the bad policy of issuing stocks at big discounts, for that is generally agreed. The Local Loans Stock at present stands at 90, and if, as I assume, the £2,500,000 now available is inadequate, fresh stock will have to be issued sooner or later. It ought not to be issued at 90. The blunder made in the past ought not to be repeated. There are two methods of fortifying the Local Loans Fund: either by issuing a fresh type of stock, not the 3 per cent, convertible at par, but possibly a stock for a period or a stock bearing a slightly higher rate of interest. If that is not possible owing to the difficulties of confusion, there ought to be a loan by the Treasury to the Local Loans Fund. There ought to be no more money raised for this fund at big discounts, and I hope the Financial Secretary can give us an assurance that if it is necessary to fortify the fund it will not be done along the line adopted previously.

Captain Crookshank: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who asked whether the £5,000,000 covered any amount that came under Clause 5, the answer is "No" The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) says that the only money available is £2,500,000, but he must have overlooked that during the coming year money will be repaid and some of the ordinary loans will have come to an end, so that money is coming in and certain investments will be realised if necessary. I cannot do more at present than to say that I will take note of his observations. I cannot give such an assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Benson: What are the investments that may be realised? The investments are £1,500,000, and cash in hand is £1,000,000. That is all the money which is available for the Local Loans Fund.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day—(Mr. Whiteley.)

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBT).

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eye-mouth Harbour."—( King's Recommendation signified.) — [Captain Crookshank.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (DETENTION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to order aliens or British subjects detained under the special wartime powers of the Home Secretary to be transferred to the Isle of Man. Enemy aliens are dealt with under the Prerogative and there is no difficulty and no prohibition in ordering their internment in the Isle of Man. There is, however, no provision under the law as it stands whereby other persons who are either British subjects or are non-enemy aliens may be sent outside the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man is, technically, not part of the United Kingdom. Consequently, it is necessary that legislation should be passed for this purpose.
Perhaps I ought to indicate the class of detained persons who will be liable to be dealt with under this Bill. There are, first, the persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B. They include persons who are being detained for acts prejudicial to the security of the State or to the successful prosecution of the war. Some 01 them are persons of enemy origin who are, nevertheless, British subjects. Some have been held to have committed certain actions, and some are persons of whom we are suspicious that in certain circum-


stances they might commit actions which are contrary to the security of the State. Many of them were members of the British Union of Fascists, who were detained under Regulation 18B, and as things are, it is not possible to detain them in the Isle of Man. I have said that some of the persons dealt with under Regulation 18B are persons who were held to be of hostile origin or associations. Some of them were originally persons of Italian nationality, but either were born in this country or have become naturalised during their life in this country. Therefore, they are in many cases persons of enemy origin, either Italian or German, and there are some others who are classed as stateless. Thirdly, there are the aliens, not enemy aliens, who are detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order. Altogether, ii we take these three classes, round about 1,000 persons are involved.

Mr. Silverman: How many are British subjects?

Mr. Morrison: Of the total of about 1,000, round about 250 are aliens held under Article 12 (5A), and therefore presumably the rest, or at any rate the great bulk of the rest, would be British subjects. I want to explain shortly the reasons why this course is desirable. There is, I think, no reason for treating persons of Italian origin who are, legally, British subjects differently from Italians who are not British subjects. The great bulk of the Italian cases concern persons who were associated with the Fascio in this country in some form or another. That does not necessarily mean that they were all conscious or dangerous Fascists. Indeed, what has impressed me in regard to a number of the Italian Fascio cases is that many of those persons joined the Fascio for reasons which had nothing to do with Fascism. In many cases it was in order to get contacts for business purposes, in other cases for social reasons. I am bound to say that the more I learn of the Italian cases the more I begin to think that, while some are dangerous, if the whole world were peopled with Italians— with the exception of a few like Al Capone— it would be a very peaceful world in which to live. There was no conscious harm in many of these people and I have been able to liberate a good many of them. But, none the less, where there is reason

for suspicion or apprehension that they are or might be dangerous to the State, they are in a totally different street, and I cannot see that there is any real reason for treating them differently from persons who are, legally, Italians and therefore enemy aliens.
In the case of the Germans it is rather a different story. Germans are different, m fact very different, from Italians and there are not the same number of cases of Germans in which one can take the view which I have just indicated. Then there are some curious cases of persons who are, technically, British subjects but otherwise have nothing whatever British about them. Recently I had before me the case of a woman who came to this country just before the outbreak of the war. She was German by birth, she had lived all her life in Germany and was still in Germany up to a certain date in 1939. In 1939 she married in Germany a person who was technically a British subject but who had lived all his life in Germany. I think the House will agree that there was nothing whatever British about that woman, but, in fact, she was legally a British subject. In a case of that kind I cannot see that there is any less reason why she should not go to the Isle of Man than there is in the case of a person who was not only wholly but legally German. Therefore, the main reason why I want this power is one of administrative convenience. It is a way of treating like with like, as far as persons of alien origin are concerned.
Secondly, the camp accommodation which we have on the mainland will be of use to the War Office for their own purposes, and it would be some convenience to the War Office if we could release that accommodation. Thirdly, we have suitable accommodation existing in the Isle of Man. Over a period there have been a good many releases of aliens from the Isle of Man. Further, it appears to us that control and supervision will be easier in the Isle of Man. It is desirable that we should consider rather modified and special arrangements as to visits and that I shall be quite willing to do. Moreover, the change will enable us to give some people who, while not subject to the full prison r6gime are nevertheless living in prison, rather better conditions which are more suitable to their


status as detained persons in certain categories. It will enable us to give them better facilities than we can give them within the physical conditions which must necessarily operate, up to a point, in prison life.
Finally, it is thought that from the point of view of security it would be wiser to have many of these people on the Isle of Man rather than on the mainland. In the case of invasion we should feel rather more satisfied if they were on an island some distance from the mainland and surrounded by water, though near enough to the United Kingdom not to make it undesirable that they should proceed to that island.

Captain W. T. Shaw: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to what number that applies?

Mr. Morrison: The outside number that will be dealt with under the Bill at the moment is about 1,000.

Captain Shaw: How many of those people would be a menace in the event of invasion?

Mr. Morrison: I am not prepared to give that figure. The purpose of the Bill is as, I have said, one of technical constitutional importance. On the other hand, it is merely designed to remove technical and legal difficulties in the way of making full and effective use of the Isle of man for internment purposes. I think there are advantages all round— advantages to the Government as regards administration, advantages to a certain number of the detained persons, some advantage to the War Office as regards releasing accommodation, and I think there will be advantage from the point of view of security. I therefore hope the House will be good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Miss Rathbone: Does the number, 1,000, which the right hon. Gentleman gave, include women refugees as well as men?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Stokes: Before I deal with the principles involved in what seems to me to be the very dangerous proposal embodied in the Bill, I should like to call attention to one or two remarks made by my right hon. Friend in

opening this discussion. Among other things, he said that the Isle of Man was only technically a part of these islands. I would ask him whether 'he really expects the House to accept that statement. I am informed that the Isle of Man is in a very peculiar position. There is not just a mere technical difference which can be very easily overcome by the wish of a member of His Majesty's Government. The Minister and I have had several contests in this House about the integrity of some of the people who have been detained under these Regulations. He went on to imply that a number of these people have actually committed acts which would be contrary to the interests of this country. Of course, one has great difficulty in getting facts out of my right hon. Friend, but my investigations do not show a single case in which it has been proved that a person has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of this country.
It is all a matter of suspicion. People may suspect others who belong to one order or another, as likely to be dangerous, as my right hon. Friend puts it, but it would be wrong that it should go upon the records of this House that all or most of these people have committed acts which are prejudicial to the interests of the country. I do not think my right hon. Friend attaches enough importance to the legal rights of these people. He glossed that matter over by saying that it would be more satisfactory if they were detained in the Isle of Man instead of in this country, and that there was not a very great difference between an Anglo-Italian and an Italian and an Anglo-German and a German. You cannot get round the law in that way— or you ought not to be able to. I have never succeeded in doing so in any matter in which I have been engaged with the Law Officers or the courts of justice in this country.
I expect that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will stress the fact that a writ of Habeas Corpus lies in the Isle of Man. I believe that to be true, but there is no possible means of enforcing it, if the gaoler of the prison or place in which people are detained chooses not to deliver the body. You can ask for the body until you are blue in the face. There is no possible means of enforcing the writ, in the present position of the law in the Isle of Man. The position there is not


technically but fundamentally different from that in regard to any other place of detention in this country. I am told that if you wanted to alter the position you would have to pass several Acts of Parliament and to get the Tynwald, the governing body of the Isle of Man, to agree to a fundamental change in the legal standing. There are several actions pending in the courts at the present time on behalf of persons detained in one or other place of detention in this country, on account of the fact that the gaolers, be they at Brixton or elsewhere, are not carrying out the intentions of the law and of this House of Commons when the Regulations were passed. If people find that the punitive conditions, of which several Members of this House have already complained, are continued when they are transferred to the Isle of Man, what possible redress will they have, under the existing laws in that country?
Suppose there is a row between the detained persons in the island, and a detained person gets his complaint heard by the official who is called the Deemster. That official decision is final. There is no appeal either to the House of Lords or to the Privy Council. As the Home Secretary has told us, there are people concerned who are British subjects completely. The dual nationality people are British subjects and have their rights, which cannot be so easily set aside, and definitely ought not to be set aside, especially having regard to the fact that they are in detention and are not in prison for punitive purposes.
I want to ask the Home Secretary to assure this House that neither he nor his predecessor has been guilty— shall I put it? — of transporting to the Isle of Man persons who are really British subjects. I would warn him that the offence is unpardonable, even by the King. The offender is liable to treble costs and not less than £500 damages to be paid to the injured party, and there are further penalties of loss of civil rights, forfeiture of all land, goods, and chattels and of imprisonment during the Royal pleasure. Finally, in very extreme cases, I believe, it is still the law of the land for a breach of this kind to be punished by the offending party having his right hand cut off. I do not wish that deformity to be inflicted upon my right hon. Friend or his predecessor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why

not?"] I do not really dislike my right hon. Friend so much that I wish to inflict it upon him, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the seriousness with which this possible infringement would have been regarded by persons at the time when people really minded whether the Executive kept the law or not. We have reached a position to-day in which we are completely ruled by the Executive. I am aware that certain sections of these people have asked to be transferred. In fact, I have been guilty of writing to the Parliamentary Secretary and urging, at their request, that they should be transferred. I am in complete ignorance of the law and do not know whether or not I was urging them to do something which was to their disadvantage. The Anglo-Italians and Anglo-Germans in a certain camp asked to be transferred to the Isle of Man because they had friends, relations and distant connections there, people who spoke the same language and had the same habits. They are not, by any means, the majority. If the Home Secretary says that he has let most of the Anglo-Italians out —

Mr. Morrison: I am anxious to keep my hon. Friend right. I said I had let out a considerable number.

Mr. Stokes: I did not wish to impute any wrong statement to my right hon. Friend, who is always strictly accurate in everything he says. On his admission, the majority of these people are inhabitants of these islands and they are descendants of people who have been here for generations. Suppose the Home Secretary refuses to reconsider his decision to press this Bill through the House — and may I say in passing that if he has become so island-minded, there are all sorts of other islands round the coasts of Britain where the difficult legal position which I believe to exist in this case would be avoided— will he assure us that before people are transhipped to the Isle of Man, which is rather a remote place in comparison with the detention camps in this Island, their cases will be properly reviewed? Secondly, in the event of their being so transferred, I should like to ask him whether arrangements will be made for husbands and wives to live together, for I imagine that that may be one of the plums held out to those unfortunate married couples of whom both are condemned?
Thirdly, there are, as I have said earlier, several cases pending in the courts. May we have an assurance that the persons involved in those cases will be kept here until they have been heard, because it is quite impossible for their legal representatives to travel to and from the Isle of Man, in order to take evidence, give advice and so on? Fourthly, may we know whether, in the event of some of the detained persons who have not yet commenced legal proceedings desiring to do so, facilities will be afforded to them to be transferred back to this country at a later date, if they desire to bring cases either against my right hon. Friend or against any other member of the Executive?
There is a fifth point which is causing very great consternation among the persons concerned, who, I would remind the House, have not been found guilty of anything and who are in prison, which is no fun for anybody. The one source of pleasure which the detenues have is that, occasionally, their friends and relatives can visit them. If they were sent away to an island, be it the Isle of Man or any other, that would make it impossible for them to enjoy that concession— or right, as it is under the present Regulation— for people cannot afford to travel such long distances. There is serious feeling on that point, although perhaps it does not apply so much to the alien detenues, because they have not so many friends or relations in this country.
Finally, I would like to press upon my right hon. Friend that these people have suffered very considerably under the detention which they have so far endured and I think— and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree— that some words ought to be inserted in the Bill so as not to give him the right to do this against their will. I want an assurance on that point as well, and I feel so strongly about this, and the various other points which I have raised, that unless I get some satisfaction, I shall be tempted to divide the House on the Second Reading.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, a question or two about this Bill. I listened with attention to the speech made by the Home Secretary and noticed that he stressed the fact that the

majority of people who are to be affected by this Bill are Fascists. He did not mention that any of the detenues belonged to the Communist party, but to whatever faction they belong, whether they are Communists or Fascists, if they are enemies of this State, they ought to be detained for the good and the safety of the State. I confess I am a little tired of always hearing it said that only Fascists or Nazis are a danger to the State. That means nothing at all. So long as any persons are enemies of the State, I desire to see them put out of harm's way.
With regard to this particular Bill, I take it that the only reason why it is necessary is that at the present time it is illegal to remove any British subject from the jurisdiction of the British courts. I imagine that my right hon. and right hon. and learned Friends would not dissent from that proposition. If that is the case, this Bill has been brought in in order that these people, whatever they may have done, may be removed from the jurisdiction of the British courts. Before the House assents to that— and I say again that I hold no sort of brief for any person whose activities or associations have been such as to render him a danger to this country in its present time of trial and danger— I think the House is entitled to be satisfied that not one of these British subjects, by being transferred to the Isle of Man, will lose one jot or tittle of his rights as a British subject under our laws. People are locked up under Regulation 18B and quite rightly so, but that does not mean that they should not possess such rights as are inherent in being a British subject. I would like to have an answer; I think I am entitled to it and I am quite sure the House is entitled to it— I would like a categorical answer from the Home Secretary, "Yes" or "No" to the question: Have any British subjects been transferred to the Isle of Man without their consent? I think we are entitled to know whether that has or has not happened.

Mr. Wedgwood: Why should they not be?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Morrison: I do not see any reason why I should answer now. I will reply in due course. I do not know why my hon. and gallant Friend should be egged on to sit down.

Sir A. Southby: I think the House is entitled to know before passing this Bill whether, in fact, the Executive have or have not sent any British subjects to the Isle of Man without their consent. It may have been for the benefit of these people to send them there, but that is not the point. If they have been sent, I understand why the Government want this Bill to be passed. But they should not have been so sent if the power to transfer them did not lie in the hands of the Executive, and I think we are entitled to be told "Yes" or "No."
I can understand that it would be infinitely to the advantage of the community that a camp should be established in a place such as the Isle of Man to which all detainees might be sent. I confess that during air raid nights I have had time to spare a thought for those people who are locked up in London gaols, in cells, in the dark. Whatever such people have done, it cannot be a very pleasant experience, and one should bear in mind that these detainees are not convicted persons but are detained for their own and for the State's safety. I agree, as the Home Secretary says, that they should be placed in a locality of comparative safety such as the Isle of Man. It is infinitely more convenient that they should be there. I would assent to the proposition to send them to the Isle of Man, but I should like an assurance that if they are so transferred, they will not lose any of the legal rights which they possess by reason of being within the jurisdiction of the British courts and that, while they are in the Isle of Man, they will retain every right which they would have enjoyed here had they not been so transferred.
I can well imagine that it would be wise to pass this legislation in order to make possible the transfer of these persons, but at the same time I think we owe it to the community as a whole, and not merely to the detainees, to see that no British subject has taken away from him any right which he possesses under the law. In war-time it is, of course, necessary to surrender a considerable number of rights. We have cheerfully acquiesced in that up to now. But there is no doubt that before the House gives its assent to this Bill, it would be acting wisely and rightly if it insisted on the clearest and most categorical assurance that such legal

rights as are at present enjoyed shall be reserved for all these people, no matter what they have done or to what party they belong. I heard with interest what was said by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken about the pains and penalties attaching to the transporting of British subjects in certain circumstances. I think that point will have to be answered by the learned Attorney-General. I do not like Bills which are brought forward, as this has been, under the guise of national expediency and which may take away still more of the rights of British subjects. It may be necessary. In that case, I should assent. But I am not prepared to assent without being told a little more about it.

Mr. Wedgwood: I am surprised at the opposition to this Bill coming from the circles from which it does.

Sir A. Southby: There is no opposition. I asked a question.

Mr. Wedgwood: I hope that we shall find nobody in the Lobby against this Bill. The question is, obviously, one of public safety. I do not say that these people who are transferred to the Isle of Man are necessarily dangerous; but some are dangerous. If there are potential Quislings among them, I want them to be in the Isle of Man, where they cannot be rescued in the event of invasion, and not here in Brixton, Wandsworth and Holloway. I am surprised that the Home Office has not taken such power long ago. It is far more important that potential Quislings should be in a safe place, than that their rights as British subjects or as the wives of British subjects should be safeguarded. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman remembers the old tag:
Inter arna silent leges.
When there is a war laws have to go to the wall, and in this case the public safety must come first.

Sir A. Southby: Is not that what I said?

Mr. Wedgwood: We see to-day in Yugoslavia what happens when you nurse in your own country people whose views are hostile to those of the democracies.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the people to whom my right hon. Friend is referring are already detained? We are


arguing only whether they shall be transferred to a. place which is under a different jurisdiction.

Mr. Wedgwood: They are detained in Brixton. If London falls, they will be the first people to be set free, and to be set in charge of this country. Surely the House realises that we, Parliament, are supreme in this matter. If a crime has been committed by the Home Secretary this Parliament can eliminate it from the Statute Book, and reinstate the rights of the people affected. The Habeas Corpus Act can be repealed by Parliament, just as it was passed by Parliament.

Sir A. Southby: Are you advocating that Habeas Corpus should be repealed?

Mr. Wedgwood: Certainly not. As far as Mosley and company are concerned, I would deal with them in another way. We cannot possibly carry on this country with a divided allegiance to democracy. This is not a national war: it is a war of religion. Here we have a certain number of people who are opposed to our success: who will do everything they can to secure the success of our enemies. Those people are a danger spot in this community. The further away they are, the better I shall be satisfied that the Government are doing their duty. My only feeling about this Bill is that, probably, it does not go far enough. When we think of the number of our friends—aliens, not British subjects— people who are on our side, and who have been interned in the Isle of Man for over a year without protest, I think that we might worry less about our enemies. Four thousand friendly aliens have been interned in the Isle of Man, of whom 1,800 have now been released.
I hope that the Home Secretary is taking as much trouble to release our friends as he is to release those who have been accused of Fascism and found not guilty of Fascism. What I hear is that priority in coming before the tribunals is given to those who have been accused of Fascism, particularly Italians, and that the unfortunate German Jews have their cases postponed for the benefit of the others. We have to consider, when putting these Nazis and Fascists into the Isle of Man, that they ought to be separated in those camps from our friends. It is unfair to put a lot of German women—they may be British

subjects, who have been brought up in Germany—into the same camp as their desperate enemies, the Jews. I want an assurance that they will not be put into the same camps, where inevitably they will be able to outrage the feelings of those anti-Fascists who are our friends. I am certain that this Bill will go through, and that the overwhelming mass of public opinion in this country is behind it, and in favour of saving us, at all costs, from the danger of any Quislings.

Mr. Mander: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the fact that I was not able to be in the House when he was making his statement, but I think I have an idea of what he said. I speak as one entirely in favour, although with reluctance, of the procedure under 18B. Under existing circumstances, it cannot be avoided. It is right that a person so detained shall be placed in such a position geographically that he shall be able to do the minimum possible damage. But these people have some rights; and whatever rights they have should be most carefully preserved. They have the right to go before an Advisory Committee. That is a right under Habeas Corpus. The House would like some assurance—I understand that it has not been given—about the position of such persons under Habeas Corpus. They ought to retain whatever rights they possess under that Act at present.
The other point I want to mention is that I am wondering whether there is room in the Isle of Man for these people. I think my right hon. Friend has said already that there seems to be plenty of room, but I feel rather doubtful about it in view of letters which I receive from persons who are in the Island and were sent to Canada, who after Mr. Paterson's visit were brought back again to this country for release, and who are still in the Isle of Man. The second batch of persons has come back from Canada, and the first thing they have seen on their arrival in the Isle of Man with astonishment is that their friends who came back in the first batch from Canada are there.
I will read one extract from a letter which throws light upon the state of affairs in the Isle of Man at the present time and the possibility of accommodation there. It is one sent by someone back from Canada. and it says:


Back in England at last! We have had an excellent crossing on a big liner, the 'Georgic,' somewhat different from our journey to Canada on the 'Ettrick. 'Unfortunately it was not a journey to freedom as the majority of us had been anticipating. After Mr. Paterson had seen us in Canada a list of names was published, headed ' List of Internees to be returned to the United Kingdom for release.' Since that list also contained names of people to whom Mr. Paterson had not given much hope—one of whom has actually been released—we had the greatest expectations. We had also read Lord Lytton's speech where he had said that nobody should be returned to the United Kingdom without his release being a certainty. You can imagine our feelings when we met here all our friends who had left Canada before Christmas with equally high hopes.
In these circumstances I cannot help feeling that the question of the situation in the Isle of Man from the point of view of accommodation and the release of these people requires very careful consideration in the light of any action which may be taken under this Bill to send over numbers of British persons. I would ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to deal with that point in any reply he may make.

Mr. Silverman: During the last few weeks, travelling backwards and forwards on trains and buses, I have carried with me a little book entitled "For Ever Freedom." It is an anthology, and I observe that the editors are one Josiah C. Wedgwood and another. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend who spoke a few minutes ago, when he comes to publish the second edition of this extremely valuable little book —and I am sure that a second edition will be called for and ought to be called for soon—will be able to find an appropriate corner in which to put the speech that he has delivered this afternoon.

Mr. Wedgwood: Defensive freedom comes first. The only safe defensive freedom is to destroy the enemy.

Mr. Silverman: I entirely agree, but I find that at the head of the last section of this anthology my right hon. Friend has chosen to put a quotation, which I think we ought to remember, by the late Lord Advocate, which says:
Liberty is not the means to higher political ends. It is itself the highest political end.

Mr. Wedgwood: Then defend it.

Mr. Silverman: Defend it at all costs, and defend it on behalf of those you hate as you would defend it on behalf of those you love. My right hon. Friend has said something about the treatment of aliens and the transfer of aliens not merely to the Isle of Man but to Canada, Australia and other places. I and the majority of people in this country hold him in the highest honour for the fight he has put up in this House in regard to this matter. Some of us in our humbler capacities have done our best to support him. It may be that some of those who are against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in connection with this Bill have not shown so much active support to my right hon. Friend in his agitation. He will not make that charge against me. I have not been lacking in this House and elsewhere on behalf of aliens who have been unjustly treated. I know that some of the aliens treated under Regulation i8b would not show me the same generosity as some of us have been trying to show to them, but that has nothing to do with it.
The two principles on which the liberty of the citizen of this country is founded are that he shall not be condemned except by his peers, and the other, which is a necessary preliminary, is that he shall not be moved from the jurisdiction of courts of his own country. One of these is gone. If a person is detained under Regulation 18B, that is a violation of that principle. It may be a necessary violation; I am not stopping to argue that. I have admitted during Debates which have taken place in this House that in the circumstances in which we now rind ourselves, and having regard to what has happened in other countries, it is vitally necessary that my right hon. Friend and the Executive generally should have some extra-judicial powers. This House has never been reluctant to give those powers, but when the Regulations were first presented this House rejected them because we felt that where a man had been detained, and an immediate emergency had been met by detaining him, then the Executive should have to satisfy the courts that the extra-judicial powers vested in them were being exercised on fair and reasonable grounds.
The Regulations were taken back because they offended against that principle and were reintroduced, after discus-


sions in which every party of this House was represented, in a form which was recommended to the Mouse by the then Home Secretary, whom I am glad to see in his place opposite. The recommendation was that the new Regulations did, in fact, give to the detained man an opportunity of a valid appeal to the courts. What has happened since then? By a series of decisions, in which the judicial bench of this country have shown themselves weaker than at any previous period in our history, there is no valid appeal to the courts. It is a mere formality in which the Executive need give no information at all and state no grounds whatever. All that we have achieved by the changed Regulations is a change in the form of the affidavit which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has to swear if his action is challenged. That is the position. There is no appeal to the courts which is of any value at all. Then comes the second stage. Having deprived a person of any valid appeal to the courts, it is said, "Let us take him outside the jurisdiction of the courts." If a man is detained, if he has no opportunity of fighting for his freedom, I dare say he may feel that it is better to be detained on the Isle of Man than in Brixton Prison.
It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that this is purely a matter of administrative convenience. I cannot remember any constitutional fight in the history of this country of which the same thing could not be said. When Charles I imposed ship money, it was said on his behalf, and has been said ever since by historians, that what was important was the principle; it was quite right that people should contribute for the defence of the Realm, and the King had the right to raise the money; it was purely a question of the way in which it was done. When we lost the American Colonies, I suppose there was a good case to be made out for the equity of calling upon them to provide some proportion of the expense of the common defence of the Empire. It is always possible to make out a case of administrative convenience. If there were no question of administrative convenience at stake, no one would bother to introduce Bills of this sort. It is no use, therefore, saying that it is merely a question of administrative convenience.
I should like to press my right hon. Friend on one point that has been raised before. Is this Bill really a camouflaged

Bill of indemnity? Is the Bill introduced because the thing which it is intended to render legal has already been done? Time after time the House has been asked to pass Bills of indemnity, and in proper circumstances it has never refused to do so, but there ought to be a full confession and we ought to know exactly what it is that we are being asked to do. I would like also to reinforce what has been said about the assurances concerning the rights of these people. I do not want to receive a purely technical answer. It is no use saying that the King's writ will run if, in fact, the practical difficulties in the way of making it run are insuperable. Can we be certain that if there is an internee who is transferred to the Isle of Man under this Bill, he will not in fact be in a worse position from the point of view of seeking such protection of the courts as is afforded in the matter of his detention? If that is not clear in the wording of the Bill—and I confess that I cannot see any provision for it—will my right hon. Friend, between now and a later stage, insert words to make it clear?
With regard to consent, it would make all the difference if the detained person himself gave his consent to his transfer, although even that would have to be watched with some care. I remember that when we asked questions about transfers to Canada and Australia, we were told that the men volunteered to go. Some of the men who volunteered to go are at the bottom of the sea, and cannot tell us whether they volunteered or not. In other cases, we know that they did not volunteer. But the Isle of Man is nearer than Canada or Australia. If we could have an assurance that no one will be transferred without his consent, that would be a good deal. If we cannot get that assurance, if my right hon. Friend feels that the country will be insecure unless the people now in cells in British prisons are taken to the Isle of Man, whether or not they consent, if he feels that the safety of the Realm depends on their being transported, without their consent, across that little channel, will he assure us that every right they now have will remain to them, not merely theoretically, but that it will be made administratively operative, so that the worst evils of this infraction of what is in fact a basic constitutional principle may be remedied?
I have no sympathy with Nazis and Fascists. I do not want to help anyone who is not heart and soul with us in the struggle which we are pursuing for the outlawry of Fascism and Nazism throughout the world. I do not know what my right hon. Friend said, but I can assure him that I mean what I say, and that I believe this struggle was inevitable, and that if there is to be a future for the world, we must have victory—victory over those ideas everywhere, and victory over ourselves where it is necessary for that end. I do not want to support anything which embarrasses the Government in that effort. I do not believe that all the excesses of unquestioned administration, unappealable administration, are really helpful to us in that effort. I think that they do much to weaken our unity. I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand, in what I have said, that I do not want to embarrass the Executive where the powers of the Executive are necessary. But, on the other hand, I do not want them to embarrass themselves by assuming powers which are not necessary, or by driving those powers too hard.

Sir Irving Albery: I gather that when this Bill is passed the whole of these detainees will be transferred to the Isle of Man. I wish to bring this point to the attention of the Home Secretary. He has recently announced that among those who have already been before the Advisory Committees he has differed from the recommendations in, I believe, 55 cases. He has assured this House that on several occasions all the information available to himself has also been made available to these Advisory Committees. Yet, in spite of that, in 55 cases he has found it necessary to differ from their conclusions. That is perhaps a little extraordinary, because these committees have been appointed by him, and are composed of persons of responsibility, and persons in whom he should be able to have a big degree of confidence and trust. I rather gather that there are certain conclusions which he comes to, but the point I wish to ask is this: When this Bill is passed, can he tell us whether he is then likely to consider it possible, under the altered conditions of confinement, that a proportion of these 55 persons, where he has disagreed with his own committees, will then be able to have a bigger degree of liberty in the Isle of Man?
This legislation was passed in a time of acute crisis, when we were all very much occupied and concerned. I have always believed that the power that was given under that Bill would not have been given, even in a time of great emergency, if Members had been less rushed and had had more time to consider it. Everyone whom I have heard speak has admitted the necessity for the Government having the right to take action under Regulation 18B. What a great many of us most heartily dislike is that a man can be brought before an Advisory Committee, which recommends his release, and a member of the Executive, on his sole responsibility, can go against the advice of the committee and detain the man indefinitely. It seems to me to go against all the cardinal principles of our Constitution. After the first emergency had passed and the Government had had time to investigate the case against people detained and collect all the information they needed, some modification of the present Regulations could have been introduced. I do not see how anyone can possibly approve of the Regulations as they stand. I can understand some arguing that, because we are still in a state of emergency, whatever the Government consider necessary must be accorded without question. I suppose, for instance, if the Prime Minister announced that this Regulation must be kept in force, for reasons which he could not divulge, and on that account he asked the House to keep it in force, the House would assent, but I cannot help wondering whether he would find it necessary to make that statement, whether, being the great Parliamentarian that he is, and one by whom the liberties of the subject and the Privileges of the House are much valued, if he now had time to reconsider the matter and give it his personal attention some machinery would not be found which would adequately safeguard the State without in this manner infringing upon the liberties of the subject and the safety of the Constitution.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think the main point on the Bill has been very clearly put. If I understand it aright, it is the question whether this additional degree of administrative convenience is necessary at the expense of some slight additional loss to the liberty of the subject or whether it is not. That


seems to be the main question on this Bill, and I think that the House is clear about it and needs no further exposition from me. There is a question subsidiary to the question so far as this Bill goes, but, with regard to our general situation perhaps more important. Admitting that it was entirely right to facilitate the administrative handling of suspicious characters at the beginning of the war or six months or a year later, the question still remains whether there is not some risk that facilitating administration in that way may tend to inefficiency in the intelligence services. I mean that the easier you make it for the higher executives to put people away and the further you make it possible to put them away without having to get sufficeint information against them to convince a court, or even to convince a confidential committee, the greater is the risk that the higher executive persons will not do all that they otherwise might to improve, strengthen and expedite the work of their intelligence services.
The intelligence services are services which it is almost impossible properly to criticise on the Floor of the House, but the question I wish to lay before the House is: Are we all so sure of the efficiency of the intelligence services in this war, as compared, for instance, with earlier wars, that we feel no qualms in continuing to do things which may make it easy for the Executive to get on vis-a-vis us, with intelligence services not as good as they might be? Where the intelligence services really matter, of course, is not in the relations between the Executive and us, but in the relations they make between the Executive and our foreign enemies. I suggest that that question is not one which any private Member can answer, and it is not one that could cause any private Member to Divide against the Bill, but it is a question which ought to cause every Member to consider very carefully whether the whole question of detention without trial is not one that ought to have much fuller and more candid discussion in this House than it has yet had.

Mr. Thurtle: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) say that he wished to see more potential Quislings effectively dealt with. He is wholeheartedly in favour of the prosecution of

our war effort. I may have the unfortunate infliction of being more suspicious than others, but when I hear people giving that general support to our war effort and to a firm hand with potential Quislings, and then find that every time the Executive with its special knowledge comes before the House with a specific proposal for dealing with those potential Quislings these people oppose those proposals, I begin to wonder whether their general affirmation is worth as much as it appears to be on the face of it.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot resist the inference that my hon. Friend, since he began his speech with a reference to me, had me in his mind in the rest of the passage. May I ask him to bear in mind that I have never resisted in this House or elsewhere the Defence Regulations, except in the sense that the overwhelming majority of the House resisted the original Defence Regulations which were withdrawn. When they were re-presented and the vast majority of the House accepted them, I did so too on the assurance of the then Home Secretary that the point which the House as a whole had desired to see met had, in fact, been met. All my criticisms since have arisen out of an uneasy feeling that the point had not really been met.

Mr. Thurtle: I did not put the cap on the hon. Member's head. He has put it on his head himself. It is for the House to decide, with such knowledge as it possesses, whether the cap fits or not. I rose mainly to say a word in defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who was attacked by my hon. Friend on the ground that he was betraying the cause of liberty by supporting this particular Measure. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in the attitude which he has taken up. All our liberties, not merely the right of Habeas Corpus but all our liberties, are involved in the successful prosecution of this struggle —

Mr. Silverman: Who doubts it?

Mr. Thurtle: —and if we endanger the successful prosecution of that struggle by hampering and thwarting the Executive in steps which it thinks necessary to take we are jeopardising the whole of


our liberties. When I hear all these nice legalistic quibbles about whether we should take away this right or that right my mind goes to the people of Norway, to the people of Holland, and peoples of that sort, who were so careful to be tolerant to the Quislingites and did not want to step over the bounds of what was right and legal and proper. I think that if the people of Norway and of Holland could have their time over again they would think they had been rather too indulgent, too generous, too tolerant, and I hope that we in this country will not follow the same course. My reading of the French Revolution tells me that one of the reasons why that great movement for liberty went down in ruins was that you had legalistic Girondins putting up one fine point after another and failing to see the broad issue of liberty which was involved. I fear we have Members of this House who are taking the same narrow, restricted, legalistic view of issues which come before us, and I hope the Home Secretary, convinced, as I am sure he is, of the need for this Measure and for taking a firm line with these people, will not think the views of opposition which have been expressed in this debate represent any volume of opinion in the country, and will accordingly stand firm and see that the Measure as he proposed it goes through the House.

Earl Winterton: I agree entirely with the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), and I am a supporter of the Government in this matter, but really it goes far more deeply than he suggests. It is not a question of legalistic quibbles. It is no legalistic quibble for any hon. Member, whatever his views, Fascist or anything else, to point out that under the existing Regulations a man may be arrested without trial, have his case considered by an Advisory Committee to the Home Secretary, and although that Advisory Committee may find that he is innocent, may yet be kept in prison under the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary. It is no use my hon. Friend making a speech about legalistic quibbling or Members of the Government like the Minister of Pensions cheering that speech when that is not the issue.
I agree much more with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken than with some who spoke before. Do not let us spoil a case by listening to those who have an arriere pensǵe and who make it clear that they are really not concerned about liberty at all. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) always wants these Regulations brought against one set of persons. He is in favour of liberty for everybody except for those with whom he disagrees, and those he would put under the thumbscrews. If that is the standard of liberty we are to have in this House, God help Parliament.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Gallacher) always represents with honesty and sincerity in this House the point of view of the Communist party. Suppose Regulation 18B were directed against the extreme "leftists" in this country, and suppose that Mr. Pollitt or Professor Haldane had been arrested. Would some hon. Gentlemen be so much in favour of the Regulation as they now are? Let us get out of our minds any idea that the Regulations are necessary to deal only with Communists and Fascists. They are very necessary to-day for other reasons. I give credit to the extreme left people who speak, as well as to the hon. Member for West Fife. Instead of being condemned by other hon. Members he should be given credit. Nobody can accuse him of being pro-Fascist.
The Bill is desirable and I support the Home Secretary's administration in this matter. Nobody who has followed the right hon. Gentleman's career would suppose for a moment that he was a tyrant or that he or his predecessor accepted, in the first instance, the principle in the Regulations and in the Bill or that the Bill was brought forward without the greatest consideration and a great deal of heartburning. A right hon. Gentleman who has spent his life at the Home Office, as the Lord President of the Council has done, and another right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, who has spent his life in administration, cannot like the Bill. No Briton can like the Bill. I defy anybody to get up and say that he likes a position in which a man can be arrested without trial and in which the only means of getting his case heard is a committee of inquiry, the advice of which need not be taken. The only question is


whether or not the Bill is necessary. On the whole and in all the circumstances, I think it is. I agree with those who say that it is high time the whole question is given full consideration in order to see whether we can produce a rather better set of Regulations. I will put a concrete question: What is the objection to having a. judicial tribunal, with two or three judges?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Peake): Why should they be tried?

Earl Winterton: Why should they not be tried?

Mr. Peake: There is no charge against them.

Earl Winterton: Is it suggested that if you told the judges that they were to sit in camera and that the evidence would not be published, you could not find three judges of the High Court to whom you could entrust that task?

Mr. Peake: If you had three judges of the High Court, you would have a tribunal very similar to the existing advisory committee; the difference would be that my right hon. Friend, who is answerable in the long run to the House of Commons, might have to overrule three members of the Judiciary instead of three members of an advisory committee.

Earl Winterton: Why should he have to overrule them? Why are the circumstances so different in this war from what they were in the last war? In the last war this position did not exist to the same extent. There was an appeal tribunal. At any rate, let me put it this way: The number of British subjects arrested during the last war was small compared with the number that have been arrested in this war, and furthermore, a great number of the former were actually tried for serious offences such as treason. The number of British subjects at present detained under Regulation 18B is much larger than the number detained during the last war.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Noble Lord is ignoring; one fact. The last war was different from the present war in this respect: there was at that time no political party in this country which had associations with a foreign government— and not

only with a foreign government, but with a foreign government or governments with which we are at war. That is a new situation. On the other point, the House has to decide whether it wants to hold the Home Secretary or the advisory committees responsible for decisions in this matter. I think the House wants the Home Secretary to be responsible. That being so, I cannot delegate my powers to any committee, whether of laymen or of judges of the High Court.

Earl Winterton: I agree that there is a distinction between this war and the last. Though I do not wish to refer to "old, unhappy, far-off things" I should have thought that the people who were distributing leaflets to try to stop the war during the last war were just as dangerous to the country as some of those now imprisoned under Regulation 18B— at any rate in the opinion of those in the trenches. My only other comment on what the Home Secretary said is this. What chance, in fact, has the House of holding the Home Secretary responsible? Mr. Jones is arrested, Mr. Jones goes before the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee says he should be released, but the Home Secretary refuses to release him. What chance has the House of dealing with a case like that? A Question may De asked, and the right hon. Gentleman need not give any reason for his decision. In fact, the Home Secretary is a complete dictator.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the Home Secretary is in a much better position now than he would be if an Advisory Committee or a Committee of Judges had the final decision. In that case the House could do nothing whatever. Now it can do something. If the House is dissatisfied with the general exercise of powers by the Home Secretary, it can challenge him, and it can make inquiries, as indeed it is doing in the Debate to-day.

Earl Winterton: I do not wish to pursue the matter further, for I am not an opponent of the Bill— partly because I trust the right hon. Gentleman's administration. But in these days, we do not very often get a full House of Commons. The House this afternoon is obviously very interested in this question, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should have regard to the fact that there is some feeling of perturbation


in the minds of many Members, as there has been on the occasion of every Debate on this matter. I say that Members of this House, to whatever party they may belong, do not like provisions of this kind if they can possibly be avoided.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I experienced some perturbation myself when I was told that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) doubted whether the Home Secretary should have power to overrule a Committee appointed to make recommendations to him. I think that is the essence of the question with which we are dealing. Should the Home Secretary have such power vested in him or not? I can visualise circumstances, especially during this war. in which, when certain people are detained under these Regulations, a body of Members of this House may combine to try to bring pressure to bear on the Committee, or to bring evidence before them to cause them to recommend to the Home Secretary that the person concerned should not be detained any longer. At the same time, the Home Secretary may have evidence of a different kind submitted to him by others, which he does not care to divulge. On that evidence, he may decide that the detention must continue.

Sir I. Albery: The Home Secretary has several times assured the House that all the information that comes into his possession is also placed before the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Macdonald: I agree; but he should retain the power to decide on information submitted to him, even though the Advisory Committee may differ from him. We all know that it is people in influential positions who are most dangerous on this issue. You do not find Quislings among the working classes. Emphasis is laid on the difficulties experienced in Holland and Norway, and so on. Who were the Quislings there? Remember that gallant raid on Lofoten. Who were the Quislings found there? I agree that one does not like seeing such a power as this possessed by anybody; but how can you carry on this war without such a power? Is it safe to detain a large batch of these people in Britain when there is the possibility of an invasion? In other countries, these were the people who were liberated to assist the enemy. The Home

Secretary is to be congratulated on taking this essential step. We are told by the Noble Lord that this is a great power for the Home Secretary to have, and that the House will be unable to deal with him. This House knows well that in 1924 another Government spokesman did something of which this House disapproved, and this House found a way of showing its disapproval. Sir Patrick Hastings had to face a very severe attack in this House, which resulted in a General Election, and the return of a Conservative Government.

Earl Winterton: That does not apply to this Bill in these particular circumstances.

Mr. Macdonald: It applies to the power of this House to deal with any Minister who acts in a way of which this House does not approve. That is the only point at issue. No reason has been given why this Bill should not be passed to-day. I can understand the concern of all hon. Members. We never know that we may not, ourselves, be concerned in the exercise of these powers, but I think that they are essential in the circumstances.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I fear I have allowed hon. Members— and have accompanied them myself — to go down a slippery slope and to get a long way from the Isle of Man. I hope that in future hon. Members will bear in mind that we are not discussing Regulation 18B, but only the question of whether those under detention may be detained in the Isle of Man.

Mr. Stokes: Would not the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) still hold good if some other island were selected, and not the Isle of Man?

Mr. Macdonald: Yes, I do not make my support of this Bill conditional upon the selection of the Isle of Man. Any other island would do.

Mr. Maxton: It is unfortunate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you should think it necessary to issue your warning just at the moment when I was making an effort to catch your eye, because the very modest contribution I proposed to make to the Debate was really to call attention to the fact that a large proportion of the matters dealt with were out with the scope of the Bill alto-


gether. I agree absolutely with those who have criticised Regulation 18B. I think the Regulation was a bad and a wrong one from the beginning, and 1 would be glad to see the House taking steps to ensure that some method of dealing with these cases, could be found which was more in keeping with British judicial traditions than this one, which really does not differ in any sense from the methods we have so strongly condemned in the Fascist countries. I did not quite get the point of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) about the Lofoten Islands. The thing that stuck out in my mind about the report of what had happened in the Lofoten Islands was that there was an Englishman walking about there and carrying on his business freely and openly. [Interruption.] I heard the gentleman speaking on the wireless one night and describing the arrival of the British troops. He seemed to be out on the quay to welcome them, and the only stipulation he made was that, if his factory was burnt, the others should be burnt as well. Therefore, it seems possible that there may exist, even under German control, some measure of liberty for those whom we must assume to be, from the German point of view, alien enemies.
The Noble Lord referred to the circumstances of the last war. He seemed to think that there was none of this sort of thing in the last war. There was none of this 18B business, that I can recall, except in the case of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). He was seized, with half a dozen others, one night at home in Glasgow and deported to Edinburgh, which, to a Glasgow man, was probably the last possible insult that could be offered him. I made a very modest protest at a public meeting against the breach of the British Constitution involved in that deportation. The Government then did not, as far as I was concerned, make any breach of the Constitution. They arrested me according to proper legal form and tried me properly, passing me through the lower courts up to the High Court. There I was sentenced by a judge of the High Court for Scotland — all done with proper dignity. One felt a sense of satisfaction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may very soon earn that reprimand which

I understood from him he had contemplated addressing to the House and to me.

Mr. Maxton: The result was a proper trial in the courts of law, and I cannot see why it could not be applied now to these Regulation 18B cases, unless there is insufficient evidence. There is evidence sufficient to make one feel that something ought to be done for these fellows. I think it is asking too much that we should allow the Executive to continue shutting up men on suspicion, although the Executive admits there is not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a court of law, or even to formulate a charge. I think the whole thing was done not in a moment of panic but at a time when the Government decided to be very effective and strong and all that sort of thing. They were influenced by happenings on the Continent; they were afraid that those happenings might be duplicated here. Well, in so far as I have travelled throughout the country during the war period, meeting people of all sorts who have no enthusiasm for the prosecution of the war, I say that there was never any chance of the happenings on the Continent being duplicated here, and there is not now.
We ought to have got past all this Fifth Column panic that has brought about this type of action. If there is a really genuine case against some of the people interned, then bring them out of their internment and put them before a court of law which can impose the drastic penalties which the law allows. But if there is no case or if there are doubts, it is the practice of this land that the benefit of any doubt should be given. Let us take the risk of these men going free. I do not associate myself with those who are opposing this Bill because they are in opposition to the general treatment of Regulation 18B cases. I am a supporter of this Bill. I remember that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) shared confinement with me for 12 months. He and I were side by side as comrades in arms. I believe it is the only time in our long acquaintanceship that we have been on really, decently friendly terms. I am perfectly certain that after I had done about six months in a Scottish prison, if I had been offered the alternative of going to the Isle of Man particularly about this season of the year and if I felt that by taking that option I


would not be letting down my principles in any way, I would have voted for the Isle of Man rather than Calton Gaol.
I have been in Brixton and seen some of the Regulation 18B men in gaol there. I do not know whether they are protesting against this Measure or not, but if they are objecting to transference I think they are ill-advised. I would recommend them to take all the opportunities offered to them in this Bill and hie themselves to the shores of the Isle of Man rather than continue languishing in Brixton Gaol. One of the things that makes a prisoner's lot tolerable is the opportunity to see his friends and while that might not occur so frequently in the Isle of Man, I hope that some opportunity will not be denied to people on the mainland to visit the island, see their folks there and the conditions under which they live. I hope, too, that opportunities for letter-writing and other means of communication will be on the freest scale and that in no way will those sent to the island lose their normal legal rights by going there rather than to any other place of internment.

Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Member still hold that view about the desirability of going to the Isle of Man if the person concerned lost his legal rights by so doing?

Mr. Maxton: I made that proviso in my last sentence.

Captain W. T. Shaw: The Under-Secretary of State seemed to think that there would be no difference between the Advisory Committee and a judicial body composed of three Judges, as was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I submit, however, that there would be a very great difference, for the reason that not a particle of sworn evidence is given before the Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman obtained these powers by holding out the Advisory Committee as a body that would conserve the rights and liberties of these people, and in my opinion he would not have got the powers if he had not led us to believe that the Advisory Committee would be a safeguard.
In connection with this Bill, I want to ask whether the people who are to be sent to the Isle of Man are to be allowed to volunteer. Are they to be given the same

option as was given to the aliens who were sent to Canada and Australia? Are these British subjects to be given treatment similar to that which was given to the aliens who were sent to Canada and Australia? Is their position, when they go to the Isle of Man, to be better or worse than in this country? For instance, what will be their position with regard to the conditions laid down in Command Paper No. 6162? The conditions of these people in this country have been very bad, some of them having been in solitary confinement for 18 or 19 hours a day for months. From what I have heard, the conditions of prisoners of war in Germany are in many instances better than wore at one time the conditions for people detained in Brixton Prison. I hope the Government will see that the conditions in the Isle of Man are not worse than they are at Brixton. Will visiting justices look after the rights of these people who, after all, are British subjects? They are not all political Quislings, for example. The hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) has a war record which compares favourably with the record of the Home Secretary and his predecessor. He fought right through the last war. He was in the retreat from Mons, fought in all the battles up to 1916, when he was severely wounded, and now he has sons fighting in this war. If one looks at the hon. and gallant Member's past record, it compares very favourably with the records of some of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench to-day. He did not have a "cushy" job at the Home Office, and he was not a passive resister or a conscientious objector.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to refer to something that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and some of the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The Home Secretary said that this war is different from the last war, and that in the last war there were no parties associated with foreign Governments. Of course, that was not the fault of the Home Secretary. It arose out of the fact that the movement had not developed in any country sufficiently far to form a Socialist Government. Had there been a Socialist Government in any other country during the last war, the Home Secretary would have been a mem-


ber of the party, which was associated directly with that Government through the Socialist International. Then, of course, there is the possibility of people being associated with an enemy Government in time of war. If there is any such association, then it is true that it would be a fit subject for the courts, and the courts would very effectively deal with it. There is no one who had greater concern and doubt about these Regulations than had the Home Secretary before he was Home Secretary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that I had better confine the hon. Member to the Ruling I have given, and ask him to keep to the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I quite agree that it is time I came to the Bill; but I felt it was necessary to say a word or two about something which was referred to by the Home Secretary. In approaching this Bill, I want it to be understood that I am all the time for the masses of the people of this country, and that I am against the ruling classes, the wealthy landowners and capitalists who are the potential Quislings, as in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia or any other country. First and last, and all the time, I am for the working classes, and I do not want any illusions created by the Noble Lord, or anyone else, that 1 stand for anything else. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has spoken of the advantages of the Isle of Man as compared with prison. I think he has spoken mistakenly, because the worst prison in Europe was the prison that we were in at Edinburgh—the Calton Gaol. But I would have preferred at any time to have been in the worst prison, because always the prisoner desires to be as near as possible to his own home. That point must be taken into consideration here.
It raises another matter, a matter which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, which, I think, he dealt with in the wrong way. On one occasion I raised the question of prisoners being allowed to visit their friends, instead of their friends visiting them. It was treated with a certain amount of hilarity when I proposed it, but later on the then Home Secretary introduced a modification of that proposal, whereby prisoners who were confined in the South of England, and whose homes were in the

North, were to be confined to the nearest prison to their home. I want the Minister to take this into account when considering the question of transferring people to the Isle of Man. I was at a concentration camp the other day, and when I arrived there were several women there who were visiting friends. They had to travel the day before from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Liverpool, and they had to spend the night in Liverpool and go through a terrible "blitz" At 2 o'clock the next day they were allowed in to see their friends. It meant putting up another night at Liverpool and travelling back to their homes on the following day.
Here you have a situation where it is proposed to send people to the Isle of Man. Their homes may be in London, Edinburgh or Glasgow. Is it to be suggested that, if the Minister takes the responsibility for transferring them to the Isle of Man, their friends have to go to all that cost and loss of time in order to spend an hour or so visiting them? I want the Minister to consider this very seriously. One of his predecessors introduced the system of transferring prisoners from, say, Parkhurst to Durham if their relatives were in the North of England. I ask him if he will take into consideration the possibility of transferring these interned people somewhere near their own homes, so that they can have the fullest opportunity of visits with the least expenditure and the least trouble to their friends. In view of the fact that there is no charge and no court decision, these are cases where the experiment should be immediately tried of giving them week-ends off to visit their friends. I was always against the Regulations, as can be understood, but I can see no reason why the experiment should not be tried.
There is another point that I want to raise. I find when I go to the concentration camps that there is a very great tendency for these people to degenerate. One thing that we experienced in prison was that you had a regular job to do. You went out in the morning for exercise and then went to a workshop of some kind. Regular work served the purpose of maintaining a measure of morale. You have great crowds of men confined in camp, with barbed wire all round them, with nothing useful to occupy their time. What sort of life is that for human beings? Every consideration should be given to


the problem of occupying their time so as to maintain their standard of fitness and the highest possible standard of morale. If these two suggestions were adopted, it would make it much easier finally to liberate these men and get them into useful employment.

Mr. David Adams: There is no question that if this Bill passes into law, it will mean a substantial increase in the power of the Home Secretary. In time of war the House does not begrudge excessive powers rather than powers which are too small to the Executive of the day, and if we can be assured by the Home Secretary that the proposals in the Bill have certain protective clauses, it ought to receive the consent of the House. The power which the Home Secretary has to seize British subjects in these islands and to incarcerate them without charge or trial is of an extraordinary character and is an entirely non-British type of justice. I am one with those who contend that the time has come when we ought to review the question whether it is not possible to bring these detainees under trial. When the Regulations were passed it was reasonable that we were expecting an invasion and were uncertain as to the general temperament of the population To-day no such situation prevails, and we are entitled to ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot see that some guarantees are made in this direction.
The proposal in the Bill is to remove without consent to the Isle of Man those who are detained in this country. Will the Home Secretary advise us whether they will be placed without the jurisdiction of the British courts or not? Although they are not at the moment to be brought to trial, they may on a subsequent date be brought to a court. If no such undertaking is given, the House ought to be dubious about extending this power to the Home Secretary to deport persons to what is virtually a foreign country and to remove them from the possibility of visits by their friends for reasons which the Home Secretary has not given us in a sufficiency. Are our prisons too full or too uncomfortable? Why should the Isle of Man be selected for this purpose? To make this selection and at the same time to add to the hardships of the detainees is not extending the justice for which we are supposed to be fighting

Mr. A. Bevan: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to reply to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). It would appear that by transferring people to the Isle of Man we are putting poorer prisoners under a greater disability. Richer prisoners will be able to receive visits from their friends, but poor prisoners will be in almost complete isolation. All their mail will be severely censored, and they will not be able to have consultations with their friends which might enable them to formulate appeals. That isolation is an important point which the Home Secretary might take into account. If it is not possible to enable the prisoners to be transferred temporarily to prisons where they can be visited, would it be possible for travel vouchers to be given at intervals to enable the friends of poorer prisoners to visit them? After all, these men have not committed any offence. All that has happened is that they do not agree with the Home Secretary.

Mr. H. Morrison: That is quite untrue. It is not worthy of the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevan: But all that we know about them is that the Home Secretary does not consider that they ought to be at large.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member may get it right presently.

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman taunts me, I will go a little further, because he is on the weakest possible ground, If he will beg my pardon in this matter, I will not go on. I was not attempting to be offensive, but as far as we know at the moment these men have committed no offence against the law. That is the fact, is it not? They are political prisoners of a most exceptional kind. They are political prisoners who have committed no offence, and therefore are entitled to exceptionally good treatment. Surely that is not a controversial point. They are under preventive detention, and we ought to be jealous that they should be treated with the greatest possible leniency and moderation.
I suggest, too, that the second point made by the hon. Member for West Fife is an important one, that some reasonable occupation should be provided for these people. Enforced idleness over years


is a terribly demoralising thing. I have not had a very long period of imprisonment myself, only a short one, and I found it quite intolerable. It is a most frightening thing, and that is why I am always careful to behave in the presence of the Home Secretary. I beg and implore him to look very carefully into this matter. We have all had representations from the Isle of Man asking for some kind of work. Suggestions have been made about taking over a large acreage of land and allowing them to cultivate it. Many of them are good cultivators, accustomed to that sort of work. If the Under-Secretary will say that he will give sympathetic consideration to these points, I know it will meet with the approval of the Home Secretary, because he does not like to see large numbers of men kept idle at the expense of the State. If these two conditions are granted, it does not seem to me that the Bill is a serious invasion of the rights of the citizen. At any rate, it is a small invasion compared with the major invasion made by Regulation 18B, which cannot be discussed now.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The Debate has ranged more widely than the somewhat narrow and careful drafting of the Bill was intended to make possible and we have at times strayed a little from the narrow path set out in it. I would make two general observations about the use of emergency powers by my right hon. Friend, without entering in detail into the matter contained in the Regulations. Nobody could wish more heartily than my right hon. Friend, myself and all the officials of the Home Office who have to deal with these emergency powers cases, that these powers were not necessary. They place an appalling burden of responsibility upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend. Orders have been made under Defence Regulation 18B in some 1,729 cases. Every one of these Orders, at the time it is made, and again on appeal to the advisory committee, has to come before my right hon. Friend personally and to have his personal consideration. Hon. Members can therefore well understand that nobody dislikes the necessity for these powers more than does my right hon. Friend.
Secondly, I have been at the Home Office since before the war and I have seen two Home Secretaries in office since the

war commenced. Not one hon. Member in this House would accept the position of Home Secretary and remain in it for 24 hours in time of war unless powers of this kind existed. When known and suspected enemy agents are at large in this country it would be impossible to accept the responsibility of allowing these persons to remain at liberty when the nation is in so much danger.
Coming to the Bill, I would first observe how different the atmosphere in this House is now from that which existed in July last year, when, with a good deal of approval from different quarters of the House, such liberal-minded Members as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) suggested to the then Home Secretary that the proper course to take with persons detained under Regulation 18B was to send them to one of the Dominions or Colonies. The very moderate proposal to send them some 50 or 60 miles over the sea to the Isle of Man has met with a certain amount of criticism. This Bill is only an enabling Measure. In his opening speech, the Home Secretary did not say that it was his intention, immediately the Bill was passed, to transfer all the Regulation 18B cases to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Mander: Has it been done?

Mr. Peake: I am coming to that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) regretted that we had not taken powers similar to this long ago. He thought we had been too slow in bringing forward this Measure. Of course, the reason is that each person detained under Regulation 18B or under Article 12 (5a) of the Aliens Order has the opportunity of going before the Advisory Committee, and it would be absurd to transfer people to the Isle of Man only to bring them back again to have their cases examined. We were therefore awaiting the results of the Advisory Committee's examinations before taking any decision to transfer any internees to the Isle of Man.
I should like to give hon. Members figures of the classes of persons with whom this Bill may deal if it is applied to their cases. I observed just now that detention orders had been made under Regulation 18B in the cases of 1,729 persons. Of those 1,729 we have now re


leased almost precisely half, that is to say, 863. There remain detained at the present time under Regulation 18B 866 persons. Of those 866, 394 are persons of hostile origin, namely, either German, Austrian or Italian. It is perfectly clear that the proper course in the majority of those cases is to put them into internment alongside those persons who are of their own true nationality— not their legal nationality, but their nationality of origin — and it is therefore clearly desirable that at any rate these 394 persons should be transferred to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to maintain the distinction between pro-Fascist and anti-Fascist, pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi groupings?

Mr. Peake: These are persons of hostile origin whom my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to detain in the national interest, and I am saying that the obvious course to pursue in their case, is to intern them alongside persons of their own origin.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. There may be persons of hostile origin who are not hostile persons. I take it that the persons to whom my hon. Friend is now referring are those in regard to whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are of hostile associations?

Mr. Peake: These are persons of hostile origin whom my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to detain, and over whom it is necessary that control should be exercised. It is a reasonable and sensible course to transfer these persons to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Mander: But would they be kept with Class A internees?

Mr. Peake: They may be put in a camp entirely by themselves. We have a large number of camps in the Isle of Man and we can set aside one of them for these people. In regard to the remainder, there are 133 persons who are detained because they are either of hostile associations or have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the defence of the realm, and the balance of 339 are persons detained under Regulation 18B (1, a), that is to say as members of an organisation which is subject to foreign influence or control

That at any rate will give the House a picture of the class of persons with whom this Bill will deal.

Earl Winterton: This is the first time I have heard that phrase in regard to being members of an organisation subject to foreign control. Why should not all the members of Fascist bodies be included?

Mr. Peake: My Noble Friend says it is the first time he has heard this phrase, but it is in Regulation 18B and has been there now for close on a year.

Earl Winterton: Why are not all Fascists interned?

Mr. Peake: Because there are two conditions to Regulation 18B. First a person has to be a member of such an organisation, and secondly my right hon. Friend has to be satisfied that it is necessary to exercise control over him. I thought the House would be pleased to have this summary of the present figures of those detained under Regulation 18B. There are, in addition, some 240 aliens, of either Allied or neutral nationality, detained under the Aliens Order. After they have been before the Committee, it seems perfectly reasonable that, generally speaking, they should be transferred to the Isle of Man, although there may, in exceptional cases, be good reason for keeping persons in this country. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the hon. Member for Bridget on (Mr. Maxton) raised the questions of visits. That is the only respect in which I think there would be any drawback to detainees being transferred. In respect of all other considerations, they will undoubtedly be better off in the Isle of Man than in this country. In regard to employment, for example, huge numbers of enemy aliens have been released from the Isle of Man during the past six months. I think the total number, including a small number who have gone to Canada or Australia, is about 13,000. It is clear that there will be scope for employment for persons of British or non-enemy alien nationality transferred to the Isle of Man. There are, in fact, works schemes of a substantial size coming into operation at present. But as regards visits, there may be some disadvantages. We shall certainly bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friends, that there may be poor or desti


tute persons whose positions will be aggravated in that respect by transference.
It is obviously impossible to undertake that we will transfer persons to the Isle of Man only on their own desire. Their own desires may change from time to time. We are taking this step not only for the personal comfort of the people detained, but also for administrative convenience. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the military require all the camp accommodation in this country for prisoners in the event of an attempted invasion. From a Home Office point of view, it will be much easier to control these camps properly if they are all situated in the Isle of Man and not separated all over the country.

Mr. Bevan: Surely it is not impracticable—and I do not think it would be against the feeling of the House— to have a record made of the conditions of prisoners' families, and to provide vouchers, perhaps not too frequently. Otherwise, the cost of visiting the Isle of Man is quite prohibitive.

Mr. Peake: We are fully alive to this problem, and will bear the matter in mind. I have been asked a number of specific questions by hon. Members. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) asked for two different assurances, one that these persons will not lose one jot or tittle of their legal rights under British law by being transferred, and the other that no British subject has been transferred to the Isle of Man without his consent. I will deal with the second point first. This also answers the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), who suspected that this Bill was a Bill of Indemnity in disguise. There is, as far as I am aware, and as far as my advisers at the Home Office are aware, no case of a British subject who has been transferred illegally to the Isle of Man.

Sir A. Southby: Or interned originally in the Isle of Man?

Mr. Peake: There were certain residents at the Isle of Man detained under Isle of Man powers at the outbreak of war, and possibly since, but there is no case, as far as the Home Office are aware, of a British subject being illegally transferred from this country to the Isle of Man

Mr. Silverman: Will the Minister say what he means when he says "illegally transferred"? We would like to know whether any British subjects who were originally detained in this country under Regulation 18B have been transferred to the Isle of Man?

Mr. Peake: The answer to that is a categorical "No," and as far as my hon. Friend's point is concerned, that this Bill was intended to be a Bill of Indemnity, I can only say that his training as a lawyer must have been singularly lacking in some respects if he thinks that a Bill drafted in this form could have a retrospective effect to excuse the Government for past mistakes.

Mr. Silverman: I knew it.

Mr. Peake: With regard to the first question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom— I think the point was touched upon also by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), as to proceedings in our courts here, it is open to any person, whether he be detained in this country or in the Isle of Man, to initiate proceedings in the courts here. As far as the rights of habeas corpus are concerned, with which my hon. Friend opposite seems to be mainly concerned, I am advised that a person detained under Regulation 18B and deported to the Isle of Man under this Bill could apply for a writ of habeas corpus either in our courts here or in the courts of the Isle of Man. He would have either method or both open to him. I understand that it was thought that a writ of habeas corpus issued from here could not be enforced in the Isle of Man by the authorities of the courts in this country, because there was no gaoler whom they could compel to produce the body of the person concerned to the courts here. If that technical difficulty exists— and it appears to be a very abstruse point of law and practice— I can give the unqualified assurance that, if the courts of this country authorised the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the body of a person to be brought before a court in this country, my right hon. Friend would do everything in his power to bring the body back to this country.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman look at the last part of Clause I of the Bill? My right hon. Friend may be


a very bad lawyer, but we all have to do our best. After providing that a
person detained may be detained in the Isle of Man, it goes on to say:
and while so detained, and while being removed … shall be deemed to be in lawful custody.
That might exclude even such remedies as he has under Regulation 18B in this country.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, those words are precisely similar to the words contained in Regulation 18B, and if those words were not included in this Bill or in the Regulation, anybody detained by my right hon. Friend under these emergency powers could immediately apply for habeas corpus and obtain his immediate release. In order to succeed in habeas corpus proceedings where detention takes place under the Regulation, a person will have to satisfy the court that the Secretary of State had no reasonable cause to believe the matters set out in the Regulation.

Mr. Stokes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point will he, between now and the time when the Bill comes before the House again, go further into the legal position because I am assured by a competent authority that what he is saying will not lie?

Mr. Peake: I think I know the hon. Member's legal authority.

Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman take a bet on that?

Mr. Peake: I think I can satisfy the House by saying that if a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court in this country, my right hon. Friend will see that the person is brought back for production to the court.

Sir A. Southby: In other words, my hon. Friend undertakes to bring back one of these persons if the processes of the law in this country require his presence?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope that a family interned in the Isle of Man will be able to live together if they wish to do so?

Mr. Peake: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised that point at Question Time

once or twice. It is a matter of very great difficulty. Here you have a married man who is detained under Regulation 18B and his wife and family are at liberty. He is compulsorily separated from them by administrative action. On the other hand, you have the case where both the husband and wife have been engaged in matters which make their detention necessary. Is it right to put those who are open to suspicion under Regulation 18B in a better position than people concerned in a case where only one of the two parties has been engaged in activity which has led to his or her detention?

Mr. Pickthorn: The whole argument for all these Regulations hitherto is that there is no criminal issue to be tried, and therefore no punitive element.

Mr. Peake: If you were to reunite a husband and wife who were both detained under this Regulation, what an immense inducement it would be to wives who are at present at liberty to engage in some practice of a nature which might lead to their detention.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman say to how many people does that apply?

Mr. Peake: These cases are not quite on a par with those of aliens in the Isle of Man. The aliens who will be reunited will, in the first place, be those who are carefully selected and mostly over a certain age. These Regulation 18B cases are very exceptional; they are cases of persons detained on security grounds, who my right hon. Friend thinks must be under control. They are not comparable with aliens in Category C.

Mr. McGovern: Take the case of a husband and wife who are both interned under Regulation 18B. Are they ever allowed to meet?

Mr. Peake: If the hon. Gentleman had followed this matter he would have known that two months ago or more we arranged meetings— fortnightly meetings I think— between husbands and wives who had been detained. The length of these meetings is to be extended from half-an-hour to one hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) raised the question of the 55 cases in which my right hon. Friend disagreed with the advice of the Advisory Committee, and he


asked whether these people could be given more favourable treatment in the Isle of Man on that ground. Obviously, that would be impossible. My right hon. Friend must treat cases where he has disagreed with the Advisory Committee on exactly the same basis, as regards conditions, as the cases in which he has agreed with the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how repugnant it is to the psychology of the House and the country to treat prisoners in the way in which his last statement suggests? Husbands and wives are brought together now for half an hour, and by an extraordinary stretch of generosity, the hon. Gentleman says that the period is to be extended to an hour. Does he realise that these people are not prisoners, and that this is not lenient treatment; that it is silly, childish, eighteenth-century treatment?

Mr. Peake: These persons are detained on security grounds. These visits have been arranged with considerable difficulty. We have had to collect all the married men into one prison in London in order that the visits might be made. It is clear that if these persons are transferred to the Isle of Man, it may be very much easier to arrange for more frequent visits and for visits of longer duration than can be arranged in this country. I should have thought that the hon. Member's point, instead of being a point against the Bill, was a point in favour of it.

Mr. Bevan: I do not oppose the Bill, but I know that the Home Office do.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member has been supporting the Bill by criticising the Home Office. If he supports the Bill, I think he ought to make his attitude a little clearer and perhaps a little more acceptable to the House generally.

Mr. Bevan: It is far more acceptable than the hon. Gentleman's view.

Mr. Peake: I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised in the Debate. The Measure is intended for the greater comfort of the persons who, unfortunately, have to be detained, and it is also intended for the administrative convenience of the military authorities and the Home Office

Mr. Bevan: 1 want to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. In answer to a question by one of my hon. Friends, he suggested that if there were any doubt as to whether a person who had been transferred to the Isle of Man could be produced in a British court by a writ of habeas corpus, the Home Secretary would give a guarantee to the House that he would in fact produce the person if such a writ were issued. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there could be no clumsier way than that of framing legislation? It is no protection to a citizen—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I would remind the hon. Member that he has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Bevan: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this matter is to go to another place, and I submit that there is no reason why the Bill should not be amended in another place, so as to make it quite clear that if there is a writ in an English court, the Home Secretary must produce the person.

Mr. Peake: I do not fully appreciate the point which the hon. Member has made. The hon. Member for Ipswich said that there was no constitutional power in the courts in this country to obtain the presence over here of a person detained in the Isle of Man. If there is no such constitutional power, no Amendment of this Bill will create it. What I explained to the House was that there was grave doubt on this whole matter. It is a constitutional issue about which the Attorney-General has no very clear or definite views. He advises me that a writ of habeas corpus may be applied for and obtained, either in our courts here, or in the courts in the Isle of Man. What is doubtful is whether a person detained in the Isle of Man can bring any action for the failure of the authorities to transfer him to this country. My right hon. Friend has given an unqualified assurance that if that situation were to arise, or if that difficulty looked like arising, he would see that that person was brought back to this country from the internment camp.

Mr. Bevan: By what method?

Earl Winterton: Surely it is an astonishing statement to say that the Attorney-General cannot answer the question?


Surely he must know how the law stands on the subject? If it is necessary to-make an amendment of the law, why cannot it be altered in this Bill? Another point I wish to ask is, whether the Committee of Privileges have power to require the authorities of the Isle of Man to allow the attendance of a Member of this House. We had the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) — and I speak as a member of the Committee of Privileges— where we served an order requiring the appearance of the hon. and gallant Member. Shall we have that power if an hon. Member is deported to the Isle of Man?

Mr. Peake: I cannot answer for the powers possessed by the Committee of Privileges. I say that every person detained under this, or any other procedure, whose presence in this country is demanded by a process of law, or by a process of this House, will be brought over.

Mr. Bevan: By what power?

Mr. Peake: By my right hon. Friend's power to order them to be brought back by the military authorities in whose custody they will be.

Mr. Bevan: Order whom?

Mr. Peake: The military authorities.

Mr. Silverman: There may be no difficulty at all. I understand when my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill he thought there were no difficulties. If there is a difficulty, however, it is whether there is any authority in this country which can be brought to bear upon the custodians of the internees in the Isle of Man, and whether there is any authority which these custodians in the Isle of Man will have to obey. If such powers can be exercised, they can be exercised under this Bill, but if they cannot be exercised the undertaking is invalid.

Mr. Peake: There is no practical difficulty of any sort or kind. This is purely a theoretical question. These persons are under the control, in the Isle of Man, of the Home Secretary, and he can have them brought back to this country any time he pleases. The theoretical point

which has been raised deals with the case of persons who are not in the hands of my right hon. Friend, but in the hands of the Manx Government.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister deal with the point about those people who are at the present moment conducting legal actions against the Government concerning their detention? Will they be treated reasonably and left here until they have finished? May I also ask whether in subsequent cases persons will be brought back to this country if they wish to take action?

Mr. Peake: It would not be right for me to give a pledge that anyone will be kept here indefinitely, or brought back at any moment, merely because they have initiated some trifling procedure in the courts of this country. If their presence is required for the purposes of the processes of law— whether it is in any court, or in a Committee of this House, which requires their presence in this country— my right hon. Friend will see that they are brought back.

Mr. Mander: Is it not possible, between now and the Report stage, to consider the advisability of conferring with the Government of the Isle of Man, and reaching some legal agreement which would not leave the matter to the political option of the Minister in this country, but would give these persons a legal right to come back?

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peake: I think I may say, without going too far, that the constitutional position in regard to the Isle of Man is such that my right hon. Friend has no reason to doubt that the Isle of Man authorities would comply with any direction that he desired to give on behalf of the Crown.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day— [Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

Resolved,
That the Sulphuric Acid (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1941, dated 4th March, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on nth March, be approved"— [Mr. Harold Macmillan.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. — [Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That Mr. Pickthorn be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and Mr. Douglas Cooke be added to the Committee" — [Major Dugdale.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — B.B.C. FOREIGN BROADCASTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Noel-Baker: A great many times in recent months I have drawn the attention of the Minister of Information to the importance of our foreign broadcasts, particularly to enemy countries and countries under enemy occupation and control. Since my right hon. Friend took over his Ministry it has begun, in my opinion, and I think in that of very many others, to do most valuable work at home, in the Dominions and in neutral countries by the various means at its disposal, but no one can doubt, and I do not believe he himself will dispute, that foreign broadcasts are incomparably the most important part of all the work that any Ministry of Information can possibly do, and every month the importance of those broadcasts continually increases. They are listened to very widely. A British speaker gave a talk in Greek the other day— a message of encouragement and admiration to Greece. A day or two later from a tiny village in the mountains 30 miles from any railway came a telegram, composed, no doubt, with the help of the village schoolmaster

as follows: "Many thanks for charming conference" The "Times" correspondent in Belgrade told us yester-day—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Noel-Baker: The "Times" correspondent in Belgrade told us yesterday that in Yugoslavia it has been a factor of real importance in the crisis that the peasants of that country were able to listen to the news in the Yugoslav bulletins of the B.B.C. It made me wish that our service there was more extensive. No one can study what has been said by Italian prisoners and by those who have recently come from Norway, Belgium or France, as I have done, and who have been in contact with German soldiers there without feeling that the time has now arrived when our wireless transmissions to the enemy peoples and the enemy forces have become an arm only less potent than the Navy, Army and Air Force in its power to bring the war to a speedy and happy end. The first time I raised this matter was in May last year, and I urged then on the Minister that these foreign broadcasts were different from the ordinary work which the B.B.C. has to do, that they were a new and specialised job of political and journalistic work, a job for which the B.B.C. was not particularly well equipped, and that the Minister would do well to take them over himself and rehouse them under a separate roof, reorganise the whole thing—staff and programmes and all—leaving the B.B.C. to do its work at home and in the Empire under its charter as it has done before.
I recognised that there were real difficulties in the plan which I proposed and that there were real advantages in retaining the technical direction and the great international prestige of the B.B.C. Those difficulties and advantages seemed to the Minister in his wisdom to be decisive. He left the B.B.C. to carry on, and, having done so, he has rightly given it the full measure of independence and responsibility which it has in all its work. Looking back, I still regret this decision. I still believe that what I suggested would


have been, on balance—I admit that there was a balance—a better plan. I was particularly disturbed last May, because it seemed to me that after nine months of war there was no one in the B.B.C. administration who showed the imagination, drive, ingenuity and courage which these foreign broadcasts required. That extended, as far as I could judge, to every part of the world, to the scale on which it was attempted, to the transmission time allotted, to the planning and preparation of the programmes, to the recruiting of the personnel, and, above all, to the message which we were sending from the British people to the outside world. I have always thought that much of the work which the B.B.C. has done in this domain deserves high praise, and I do not need again to say that the staff have been single-minded, industrious and devoted to the highest degree.
I thought last May, however, and I still think, that even within the limits imposed on it by the shortage of transmitters—and it was serious—and by the lack of adequate Government decisions on the policy to be pursued—which was serious too—the B.B.C. should nevertheless have done far more than it did. I still think, as I thought then, that the most damaging of their limitations was a too narrow and too unambitious conception of their task. That showed itself, as too narrow conceptions always will, in the material organisation of the work. The B.B.C. were then starting many new services in different languages. They were doing work which had to be done in London, but they did not try to get adequate new premises in which to instal the services. They piled them on top of the other services in broadcasting, having, I admit, evacuated some services to the country. In consequence, last May the studios and the offices of those services were overcrowded, the staff was inadequate in numbers, the offices could hold no more, and they were working in bad conditions and were being overworked. That was five months before Broadcasting House was bombed. In those five months I often raised the matter in private, but nothing was done. In October came the bombing; part of Broadcasting; House had to be evacuated, and all the foreign services were sent to another place, to

reserve premises which had been prepared elsewhere.
Great praise has been given to the B.B.C. because their services were carried on at the time of the bombing without a break. Great praise is rightly given to all to whom that very considerable success was due, but I cannot, for my part, include those by whom the reserve accommodation had been planned. In December I called the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary in this House to that accommodation, and I said the conditions were vile. He had seen them for himself, and said they were almost intolerable, but that he hoped they would be dealt with quickly. I raised the question again on 6th February, and the Minister then accepted my criticisms and said they were completely justified. Last week the foreign services were still in that same place. Let me in one or two sentences remind the House of the conditions. When I spoke last I said I found there eight national sections working in one small room, with eight tables, four or five men to a table. If an unhappy translator had to prepare an urgent news bulletin for the microphone in a few minutes, he had to sit on the corner of a table and shout his dictation into the ear of the still more unhappy typist who was taking it down. This work is difficult, arduous and highly responsible, involving a great nervous strain. If I may borrow the Parliamentary Secretary's word, it really was "intolerable" that the staff should be made to do it in such conditions.
I ask the Minister to note two things. The foreign services were moved into this place, with these conditions, after we had been 14 months at war, when the B.B.C. had had 14 months in which to prepare reserve accommodation for these most vital services if they should happen to be bombed. Secondly, they were left in this place, in those intolerable conditions, for five months after the bombing had taken place, in conditions which prevented good work, which were a grievous menace to health and which were open to other grave objections of which the Minister is well aware. I know that the Minister is going to tell us that these services have now been moved, that the B.B.C. have taken a new building and that conditions are better than before. I congratulate him. I am sure it would not have been


done but for his own action and insistence. I am sure the conditions will be better but, according to my information the B.B.C. have not taken a new building but have taken only the twentieth of a building, that the accommodation, while better, is very doubtfully adequate, and that it does not leave a margin for expansion. Yet expansion has got to be.
The staff last May was inadequate. There have been additions to it, much less than there should have been in view of the great increase of work which has taken place. But that increase of work is going on. Since 16th February, in one particularly important section, the German section, the number of bulletins per day has been increased from 8 to 14, and there has been added a feature programme lasting from 50 minutes to an hour per day. That doubles the work, indeed, more than doubles the work. Yet only three people have been added to the German staff, according to my information. Two of them were translators. Of those two one was a painter. I am told that as a translator he is an excellent painter, but that he does not greatly relieve the labours of the other translators.
This is a desperately serious matter. If I had the time, I would urge upon the Minister a special case with regard to the feature programme. We cannot afford mistakes in a feature programme to Germany. We are dealing with Dr. Goebbels. That staff was manned by four people six weeks ago. I hope the Minister can tell us it has been increased, but I doubt it. There is one man who certainly ought to be taken on. His name is Priwin; he used to be known to the British public as Inspector Hornleigh. It would take a longer time than I have at my disposal to give the House the details why the late Inspector Hornleigh—Mr. Priwin—is now on the streets instead of working for the B.B.C. I can give the information to the Minister in private. I hope that the Minister will see that something is done.
When the Minister hears the facts I think he will agree that the present direction of the B.B.C. has not shown the vision, strength, courage and determination to cut through red tape and to get the results which, in such a vital matter, are required. If those qualities had been shown, the B.B.C. would never have left the foreign services for nine months in Broadcasting House. It would never

have been content with the "Black Hole of Calcutta" to which it moved, when it had been bombed. It would never have lived there for five months after it had been bombed and would never have left vital services seriously understaffed, as some of them still are. Difficulties by which it was confronted would have been swept away. I think I understand those difficulties and the explanations which are given. One of them is that the B.B.C. did not dare to take on a big new building in London because it thought that some other Government Department would take it away, after the B.B.C. had got it. Could anything more clearly prove the case which I am trying to make than that such an argument should be put forward as an adequate explanation or excuse?
The other day I was talking about the whole thing to a man of mature judgment who has had a long experience of administration and who knows the effect and the problems of the foreign services far better than I do. I asked him why all this had happened. In language far harsher than I should use, he said that the only possible explanations were either complete indifference or gross incompetence. I could not ask the Minister to accept that view; I do not ask him to accept the view which I have given of the history of the matter. I do not ask him to discuss it, if he does not want to. I hope that, from now, that history may be buried in the past. I ask him to see that things go better in future. I urge him to make the necessary changes at Broadcasting House. I hope that he will start at the top.
In answer to a supplementary question the other day, the Minister promised to reconsider the composition of the Board of Governors. I hope he will tell us that he has done so, and that some decision has been taken or will be taken at a very early date. The number of governors was reduced in September, 1939, on the one ground alone that it was necessary, because in war-time we might need swift decisions. That is true in all parts of our Government machine. It is true even of the War Cabinet. The Prime Minister loves swift decisions, yet he would be the last to propose that the War Cabinet should consist of himself and the Minister of Aircraft Production. He knows, as we all do, that wider representation is re


quired in order to get the right decisions and in order that the decisions, when made, shall command confidence outside. The same is true of the B.B.C.
The Minister has had a lot of trouble lately with some decisions of the B.B.C, including one to which the Prime Minister gave attention the other day. That decision would never have been made if there had been a more representative Board of Governors. I can see no argument for a Board of five at the present moment. I hope the Minister will tell us that a change will be made in. the high direction. That is the most important change now. I hope he will tell us also that changes will be made in the day-to-day administration if, after examination of the facts, he thinks they are required. I know that the Minister may be advised by the staff. They are excellent people. I am not absolutely convinced that, administratively, that is the most effective way, and in any case I urge that he should take any necessary action. No personal difficulties should stand in the way; efficiency and the public interest should be the only things taken into account. I ask him to remember that we are coming to a point at which this work of wireless propaganda must assume immense importance. I urge him to create a service in every way equal to the task which it is called upon to perform, remembering always that by this means the war may well be shortened and much blood, treasure and suffering may thus be saved.

Mr. Price: I should like to express a feeling of dissatisfaction at the way in which, until now, the foreign propaganda of the B.B.C. has been carried on, particularly in regard to what has been going on in enemy countries. It seems to me that insufficient emphasis has been laid upon a certain aspect of our propaganda. There has been a failure to realise that this is a war of ideas in which propaganda for the rule of international law and democracy must be a cardinal part of our war machine, and that one of our means of answering Hitler's "new order" in Europe, with its "Herrenvolk" idea, is our own idea of the co-operation of the people of Europe and of the world, which is our new order. I suggest that sufficient emphasis has not been laid on this

all-important aspect of our propaganda, which should be an integral part of our war machine.
From time to time, I have heard broadcasts; one was made not long ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Sir A. Southby) who is not now in his place. It was a good, hearty Speech, no doubt, and it gave a certain aspect, or rather lack of aspect, namely, that we must fight this war out without worrying about our war aims. He suggested that those could come later. But we want also to give the other point of view. I think it is high time that we should hear from the microphone, occasionally at least, the other aspect of the matter, both for our own people and particularly for the enemy countries. It is a very serious matter, for I am satisfied that a very large part of the working-classes of Germany to-day, thanks to months and years of Goebbels' propaganda, seriously believe that this country is ruled by what they are pleased to call a "Plutodemocracy"
The whole working-class of Germany is demoralised; it should be our task to remoralise them. We can do it, I believe, but it will take some doing. We have to show what our ideas of a new Europe are; we have to show that we are not a plutodemocracy, but that we have a great system of social services, and that we are as capable as they are of putting our house in order even in spite of the war— more capable in tact. There is no doubt that the masses of the working-class in Germany are at the moment completely hypnotised. It is our job to de-hypnotise them, but I see no sign whatever that any of the ruling people in the B.B.C, even appreciably, understand this terribly important point. We ought to show them how our democracy functions. We ought to give them descriptions of the way in which our problems are dealt with in open discussion, how in fact everything works. We have to set our aims high and have a long term objective.
I am satisfied that, in the long run, that would bring some response. I understand that this is the position in Germany to-day. The bulk of the youth, whose minds have been poisoned by Goebbels's propaganda, are at the front. There remain at home, listening to our broadcasts, the older people, who have been brought up in the tradition of the old German Social


Democrat movement and of the trade union movement. If they hear the right stuff, they will become uncertain. I think that many of them are uncertain now. There is an immense chance for us, if only we will take it. I hope that those who control our broadcasting will take that chance.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have no quarrel with anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has said. He stated his case with his customary sincerity and, I think, with complete fairness. We are all aware of the importance of foreign broadcasts at present. We are all aware that insufficient vision was shown before the war in making the necessary preparation for expansion in this direction, just as there was a lack of foresight in so many other directions. But we cannot, I think, justly apportion blame for a failure for which we are all, to some extent, responsible. I entirely agree with him, and with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), not only that it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of foreign broadcasting at the present time, but that that importance is ever growing. It is greater this year than it was last year; and, as the war approaches a critical stage, and as the prospects of victory draw nearer, so the importance of this weapon will become ever greater, and will hasten the collapse of the enemy which our Army, Navy and Air Force will prepare.
It is partly a realisation of this fact which is the cause of many of those discontents to which the hon. Member for Derby has given expression. He says that he advocated 10 months ago an entire reorganisation of the system of foreign broadcasting, that it should be taken away from the British Broadcasting Corporation and placed completely under Government control, separated materially and mentally from the authorities who had hitherto controlled it, and housed in a separate building. Looking back, I am quite prepared now to say that that might have been the right thing to try; but it is difficult to reform your army on a new basis in the middle of a battle. The thing has to be kept going all the time, with increasing power, increasing rapidity, and ever-increasing volume. Therefore, it would have been difficult to take so

drastic a decision, cutting at the root of the matter, at any moment, and especially at those moments in May and June last year when I assumed office, when it was so difficult to take a long view, when we were all living more or less from hand to mouths.
The hon. Member has generally admitted the great advance that has been made, both in the amount of broadcasting done and also, I think, in its quality. I assure the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that that really is the case. I can judge to some extent from the telegrams which we receive from our representatives abroad. A year ago they were nearly always telegrams of complaint; now, they are often complimentary. We appreciate the importance of developing this side of broadcasting—this all-important side of propaganda, at the present time. Indeed, the hon. Member said it is the only way we can get our views expressed on the Continent of Europe. As we have realised that, so we have increased the staff and the languages and the hours devoted to foreign broadcasts. It has not been easy. In fact, it would have been impossible to keep up with these increases in the line of accommodation. It is not an easy matter, the House will readily understand, to house satisfactorily those who are engaged in broadcasting. They cannot be put just anywhere, and they have to be served by all the technical apparatus inseparable from the work that they are carrying out, and the installation of such apparatus necesarily takes time.
As they carry on their work during the 24 hours of the day, all through the night, which in many cases are some of the most important hours, they have also to be housed with reasonable security. My hon. Friend may say that they have not been housed with reasonable security, and I am bound to admit that there is something in that contention, but everything possible has been done. If insufficient vigour has been shown, as it may seem to him, at any rate, I can assure him that those who are responsible for carrying out the work have thrown all their energies into it. The staff, which was evacuated so rapidly at such short notice from Broadcasting House and was living in conditions which he rightly described as intolerable, was moved the Sunday before last into


better quarters. I inspected those quarters last week, and I shall be very glad if he does so too. I do not think that he will be satisfied if he does; I was not. There is still a great deal to be desired. We are endeavouring to obtain two other, larger parts of the same buildings and are getting rid of the obstacles placed in our way. At the same time, we contemplate taking on another separate large building in another part of London, so that eventually, I hope, the increase in accommodation will catch up with the increase in staff and hours of broadcasting.
We are also trying, at the same time, to do all we can to increase the broadcasting hours, realising, as the hon. Member does, how important it is. I am not in a position to-night to give him a full statement with regard to the future of the Board of Governors. I remember that

on the last occasion I was giving close attention to the matter, and I am giving immediate consideration to the problem at the present time, but, of course, a problem of that sort necessitates some consultation with other people. There is the question of various names to be considered and so on, and I feel I can with comparative certainty give him an undertaking that I shall be making a statement on the subject next week. I hope that it will be a statement which will give him some satisfaction and meet to some extent his criticism, and that in future we shall be able continually to develop this side of propaganda activity so that broadcasting to foreign countries may become one of the weapons of victory.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.